Law on Torts in Australia Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Law on Torts in Australia - Essay ExampleThe law is clear on the fact that the defendant had no right to touch the person of the complainant as the defendant did not have any arrest indorsement authorizing him to take Tom into custody.3 Upon refusal by the plaintiff to accompany the defendant to the police station, the defendant should have left the premises and proceeded to go and obtain a court roam or a warrant of arrest that would have allowed him to take the plaintiff into custody for questioning4. The plaintiff could argue that the actions of the dickens defendants caused economic injury to his business as a result of their insist on questioning him within the premises of Toms business property at the reception area in full compute of his delay customers. Hargrave v Goldman (1936) 110 CLR 40, 495 (Windeyer J). Tom lav argue that the actions of the two officers had adversely affected his business by portraying him negatively in full view of the customers. Tom can also cl aim that his business suffered extensive loss as a result of the Defendant officer Derk detaining him for longer than was actually essential at the police station even after he had questioned him for a reasonable duration of time without a warrant or court order authorizing him to do so.6 Causes of Court Action Available to the Plaintiff The Plaintiff can take several legal recourses against the defendants. In the depicted object of Tom, the plaintiff versus Officers Derk and Falcon, the defendants, he can be able to sue the two for trespassing onto his property as was seen in the case of Adams v. State of tonic South Wales & ors (2001) New South Wales regulate Court.7 The law defines trespass as Trespass is a tortious cause of action dealing with direct and intentional interferences to either the person, land or to goods. Reynolds v Clarke (1725) 1 Str 634. They can be sued as a result of their refusal to leave the plaintiffs property even after he had asked them to do so. The t wo defendants also went on to search the plaintiffs workshop without a warrant and are liable to be sued for conducting an illegal search as was in the case of Curran & ors v. Walsh & ors (1998) unreported, New South Wales District Court.8 In the case of The Plaintiff Tom Versus the defendant Officer Falcon, the plaintiff can sue the defendant for trespass on his person. By placing his hand on the plaintiffs shoulder, the defendant had directly and deliberately caused there to be physical contact between his person and the plaintiffs person without the consent or the legal justification to do so and hence was liable to be sued.9 In the case of the plaintiff, Tom versus the defendant, officer Derk, the plaintiff could sue for economic damages sustained as a result of the officer retaining him for questioning at the police station for too long. In the case of Caltex Oil (Australia) Pty Ltd v The Dredge Willemstad 1976 HCA 6510 Caltex were able to recover damages for the economic losse s they suffered without having suffered any actual physical damage.11 Tom was unnecessarily detained for questioning no matter of the fact that the plaintiff had come to the station on his