STRICT_JJ LIABILITY_NN1 :_: RULE_NN1 IN_II RYLANDS_NN2 v._II FLETCHER_NP1 HAVING_VHG considered_VVN the_AT tort_NN1 of_IO nuisance_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 now_RT turn_VV0 to_II a_AT1 further_JJR tort_NN1 which_DDQ had_VHD its_APPGE origins_NN2 in_II nuisance_NN1 but_CCB which_DDQ has_VHZ developed_VVN in_II such_DA a_AT1 way_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ now_RT quite_RG distinct_JJ from_II it_PPH1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ._. 
THE_AT RULE_NN1 IN_II RYLANDS_NN2 v._II FLETCHER_NP1 The_AT facts_NN2 of_IO this_DD1 case_NN1 were_VBDR as_CSA follows_VVZ ._. 
B_ZZ1 ,_, a_AT1 millowner_NN1 ,_, employed_VVD independent_JJ contractors_NN2 ,_, who_PNQS were_VBDR apparently_RR competent_JJ ,_, to_TO construct_VVI a_AT1 reservoir_NN1 on_II his_APPGE land_NN1 to_TO provide_VVI water_NN1 for_IF his_APPGE mill_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT course_NN1 of_IO the_AT work_NN1 the_AT contractors_NN2 came_VVD upon_II some_DD old_JJ shafts_NN2 and_CC passages_NN2 on_II B_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 land_VV0 ._. 
They_PPHS2 communicated_VVD with_IW the_AT mines_NN2 of_IO A_ZZ1 ,_, a_AT1 neighbour_NN1 of_IO B_ZZ1 ,_, although_CS no_PN121 one_PN122 suspected_VVD this_DD1 ,_, for_IF the_AT shafts_NN2 appeared_VVD to_TO be_VBI filled_VVN with_IW earth_NN1 ._. 
The_AT contractors_NN2 did_VDD not_XX block_VVI them_PPHO2 up_RP ,_, and_CC when_CS the_AT reservoir_NN1 was_VBDZ filled_VVN the_AT water_NN1 from_II it_PPH1 burst_VVD through_II the_AT old_JJ shafts_NN2 and_CC flooded_VVD A_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 mines_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ found_VVN as_II a_AT1 fact_NN1 that_CST B_ZZ1 had_VHD not_XX been_VBN negligent_JJ ,_, although_CS the_AT contractors_NN2 had_VHD been_VBN ._. 
A_ZZ1 sued_VVD B_ZZ1 and_CC the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP held_JJ B_ZZ1 liable_JJ ._. 
The_AT litigation_NN1 originated_VVN in_II an_AT1 unusual_JJ way_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 began_VVD as_II an_AT1 action_NN1 upon_II the_AT case_NN1 (_( apparently_RR for_IF negligence_NN1 )_) at_II Liverpool_NP1 Assizes_NN2 ,_, and_CC A_ZZ1 secured_VVD a_AT1 verdict_NN1 ,_, subject_II21 to_II22 the_AT award_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 arbitrator_NN1 ,_, who_PNQS was_VBDZ afterwards_RT empowered_VVN by_II a_AT1 judge_NN1 's_GE order_NN1 to_TO state_VVI a_AT1 special_JJ case_NN1 instead_II21 of_II22 making_VVG an_AT1 award_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 he_PPHS1 did_VDD ,_, and_CC so_RR the_AT case_NN1 came_VVD before_II the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Exchequer_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, by_II a_AT1 majority_NN1 ,_, decided_VVD in_II31 favour_II32 of_II33 the_AT defendant_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Exchequer_NN1 Chamber_NN1 unanimously_RR reversed_VVN this_DD1 decision_NN1 and_CC held_VVN the_AT defendant_NN1 liable_JJ ,_, and_CC the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP affirmed_JJ their_APPGE decision_NN1 ._. 
The_AT judgment_NN1 of_IO the_AT Exchequer_NN1 Chamber_NN1 was_VBDZ delivered_VVN by_II Blackburn_NP1 J._NP1 and_CC it_PPH1 has_VHZ become_VVN a_AT1 classical_JJ exposition_NN1 of_IO doctrine_NN1 ._. 
'_" We_PPIS2 think_VV0 that_CST the_AT true_JJ rule_NN1 of_IO law_NN1 is_VBZ ,_, that_CST the_AT person_NN1 who_PNQS for_IF his_APPGE own_DA purposes_NN2 brings_VVZ on_II his_APPGE lands_NN2 and_CC collects_VVZ and_CC keeps_VVZ there_RL anything_PN1 likely_JJ to_TO do_VDI mischief_NN1 if_CS it_PPH1 escapes_VVZ ,_, must_VM keep_VVI it_PPH1 in_RP at_II his_APPGE peril_NN1 ,_, and_CC ,_, if_CS he_PPHS1 does_VDZ not_XX do_VDI so_RR ,_, is_VBZ prima_RR21 facie_RR22 answerable_JJ for_IF all_DB the_AT damage_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ the_AT natural_JJ consequence_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE escape_NN1 ._. 
'_" This_DD1 may_VM be_VBI regarded_VVN as_II the_AT '_GE rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ,_, '_GE but_CCB what_DDQ follows_VVZ is_VBZ equally_RR important_JJ :_: '_" He_PPHS1 can_VM excuse_VVI himself_PPX1 by_II showing_VVG that_CST the_AT escape_NN1 was_VBDZ owing_VVG to_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE default_NN1 ;_; or_CC perhaps_RR that_CST the_AT escape_NN1 was_VBDZ the_AT consequence_NN1 of_IO vis_MC2 major_JJ ,_, or_CC the_AT act_NN1 of_IO God_NP1 ;_; but_CCB as_CSA nothing_PN1 of_IO this_DD1 sort_NN1 exists_VVZ here_RL ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ unnecessary_JJ to_TO inquire_VVI what_DDQ excuse_VV0 would_VM be_VBI sufficient_JJ ._. 
The_AT general_JJ rule_NN1 ,_, as_CSA above_RL stated_VVD ,_, seems_VVZ on_II principle_NN1 just_RR ._. 
The_AT person_NN1 whose_DDQGE grass_NN1 or_CC corn_NN1 is_VBZ eaten_VVN down_RP by_II the_AT escaping_JJ cattle_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE neighbour_NN1 ,_, or_CC whose_DDQGE mine_NN1 is_VBZ flooded_VVN by_II the_AT water_NN1 from_II his_APPGE neighbour_NN1 's_GE reservoir_NN1 ,_, or_CC whose_DDQGE cellar_NN1 is_VBZ invaded_VVN by_II the_AT filth_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE neighbour_NN1 's_GE privy_JJ ,_, or_CC whose_DDQGE habitation_NN1 is_VBZ made_VVN unhealthy_JJ by_II the_AT fumes_NN2 and_CC noisome_JJ vapours_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE neighbour_NN1 's_GE alkali_NN1 works_VVZ ,_, is_VBZ damnified_VVN without_IW any_DD fault_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE own_DA ;_; and_CC it_PPH1 seems_VVZ but_CCB reasonable_JJ and_CC just_RR that_CST the_AT neighbour_NN1 ,_, who_PNQS has_VHZ brought_VVN something_PN1 on_II his_APPGE own_DA property_NN1 which_DDQ was_VBDZ not_XX naturally_RR there_RL ,_, harmless_JJ to_II others_NN2 so_RG long_RR as_CSA it_PPH1 is_VBZ confined_VVN to_II his_APPGE own_DA property_NN1 ,_, but_CCB which_DDQ he_PPHS1 knows_VVZ to_TO be_VBI mischievous_JJ if_CS it_PPH1 gets_VVZ on_II his_APPGE neighbour_NN1 's_GE ,_, should_VM be_VBI obliged_VVN to_TO make_VVI good_JJ the_AT damage_NN1 which_DDQ ensues_VVZ if_CS he_PPHS1 does_VDZ not_XX succeed_VVI in_II confining_VVG it_PPH1 to_II his_APPGE own_DA property_NN1 ._. 
But_II21 for_II22 his_APPGE act_NN1 in_II bringing_VVG it_PPH1 there_RL no_AT mischief_NN1 could_VM have_VHI accrued_VVN ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 seems_VVZ but_CCB just_RR that_CST he_PPHS1 should_VM at_II his_APPGE peril_NN1 keep_VV0 it_PPH1 there_RL so_CS21 that_CS22 no_AT mischief_NN1 may_VM accrue_VVI ,_, or_CC answer_VV0 for_IF the_AT natural_JJ and_CC anticipated_JJ consequences_NN2 ._. 
And_CC upon_II authority_NN1 ,_, this_DD1 we_PPIS2 think_VV0 is_VBZ established_VVN to_TO be_VBI the_AT law_NN1 whether_CSW the_AT things_NN2 so_RR brought_VVN be_VBI beasts_NN2 ,_, or_CC water_NN1 ,_, or_CC filth_NN1 ,_, or_CC stenches_NN2 ._. 
'_GE The_AT judgment_NN1 for_IF the_AT plaintiff_NN1 was_VBDZ upheld_VVN by_II the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP ,_, but_CCB Lord_NNB Cairns_NP1 L.C._NP1 rested_VVD his_APPGE decision_NN1 on_II the_AT ground_NN1 that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 had_VHD made_VVN a_AT1 '_GE non-natural_JJ use_NN1 '_GE of_IO his_APPGE land_NN1 ,_, though_CS he_PPHS1 regarded_VVD the_AT judgment_NN1 of_IO Blackburn_NP1 J._NP1 as_CSA reaching_VVG the_AT same_DA result_NN1 and_CC said_VVD he_PPHS1 entirely_RR concurred_VVD in_II it_PPH1 ._. 
It_PPH1 may_VM well_RR be_VBI true_JJ ,_, therefore_RR ,_, that_CST there_EX were_VBDR two_MC rules_NN2 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ,_, the_AT fairly_RR closely_RR defined_VVN formulation_NN1 of_IO Blackburn_NP1 J._NP1 and_CC the_AT more_RGR flexible_JJ one_PN1 stated_VVD by_II Lord_NNB Cairns_NP1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT effect_NN1 of_IO the_AT subsequent_JJ case_NN1 law_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO add_VVI the_AT non-natural_JJ use_NN1 requirement_NN1 to_II Blackburn_NP1 J._NP1 's_GE formulation_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 development_NN1 which_DDQ has_VHZ played_VVN a_AT1 not_XX insignificant_JJ part_NN1 in_II the_AT restriction_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 form_NN1 of_IO strict_JJ liability_NN1 ._. 
Genesis_NN1 of_IO the_AT principle_NN1 Such_DA were_VBDR the_AT facts_NN2 and_CC decision_NN1 in_II the_AT case_NN1 ._. 
Although_CS Lord_NNB Cairns_NP1 regarded_VVD the_AT principles_NN2 applicable_JJ as_II extremely_RR simple_JJ ,_, it_PPH1 seems_VVZ clear_JJ that_CST the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 was_VBDZ faced_VVN by_II a_AT1 new_JJ and_CC important_JJ problem_NN1 which_DDQ could_VM not_XX be_VBI solved_VVN by_II merely_RR applying_VVG the_AT existing_JJ authorities_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 was_VBDZ not_XX the_AT first_MD time_NNT1 that_DD1 water_NN1 had_VHD been_VBN collected_VVN in_II bulk_NN1 ,_, but_CCB hitherto_RT those_DD2 who_PNQS indulged_VVD in_II the_AT practice_NN1 had_VHD generally_RR been_VBN powerful_JJ bodies_NN2 ,_, like_II water_NN1 or_CC railway_NN1 companies_NN2 ,_, who_PNQS had_VHD acted_VVN under_II powers_NN2 given_VVN them_PPHO2 by_II legislation_NN1 which_DDQ at_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 made_VVD them_PPHO2 liable_JJ for_IF harm_NN1 done_VDN by_II its_APPGE escape_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB here_RL there_EX was_VBDZ no_AT statutory_JJ authority_NN1 ,_, and_CC although_CS there_EX were_VBDR several_DA2 paths_NN2 that_CST seemed_VVD to_TO lead_VVI to_II a_AT1 solution_NN1 ,_, none_PN of_IO them_PPHO2 went_VVD the_AT whole_JJ way_NN1 ._. 
Trespass_VV0 did_VDD not_XX really_RR fit_VVI the_AT case_NN1 because_CS the_AT harm_NN1 was_VBDZ consequential_JJ ,_, not_XX direct_JJ ._. 
There_EX was_VBDZ a_AT1 finding_NN1 that_CST the_AT contractors_NN2 were_VBDR at_II fault_NN1 with_II31 regard_II32 to_II33 the_AT old_JJ shafts_NN2 ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX clear_JJ that_CST they_PPHS2 should_VM have_VHI realised_VVN that_CST their_APPGE conduct_NN1 would_VM affect_VVI the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE land_NN1 and_CC even_CS21 if_CS22 this_DD1 had_VHD been_VBN the_AT case_NN1 there_EX would_VM have_VHI been_VBN a_AT1 serious_JJ issue_NN1 at_II that_DD1 times_VVZ whether_CSW the_AT defendant_NN1 was_VBDZ liable_JJ for_IF the_AT negligence_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE contractor_NN1 ._. 
Nor_CC was_VBDZ nuisance_NN1 considered_VVD applicable_JJ ,_, apparently_RR on_II the_AT basis_NN1 that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 had_VHD no_AT reason_NN1 to_TO foresee_VVI the_AT injury_NN1 ._. 
Look_VV0 at_II the_AT decision_NN1 of_IO the_AT Exchequer_NN1 Chamber_NN1 how_RRQ we_PPIS2 may_VM ,_, it_PPH1 laid_VVD down_RP a_AT1 new_JJ principle_NN1 ._. 
True_JJ ,_, in_II the_AT judgment_NN1 itself_PPX1 it_PPH1 might_VM appear_VVI that_CST the_AT court_NN1 was_VBDZ making_VVG a_AT1 pontifical_JJ statement_NN1 of_IO existing_JJ principle_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 laying_VVG down_RP a_AT1 new_JJ rule_NN1 ,_, for_CS they_PPHS2 regarded_VVD their_APPGE own_DA proposition_NN1 as_II having_VHG been_VBN anticipated_VVN by_II Holt_NP1 ._. 
C.J._NP1 some_DD 160_MC years_NNT2 earlier_RRR in_II Tenant_NN1 v._II Goldwin_NP1 ,_, and_CC they_PPHS2 cited_VVD as_CSA instances_NN2 of_IO it_PPH1 the_AT rules_NN2 relating_VVG to_II cattle-trespass_NN1 ,_, the_AT escape_NN1 of_IO mischievous_JJ animals_NN2 and_CC nuisance_NN1 by_II the_AT escape_NN1 of_IO fumes_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB in_II fact_NN1 Holt_NP1 C.J._NP1 's_GE decision_NN1 related_VVN to_II the_AT escape_NN1 of_IO filth_NN1 and_CC his_APPGE formulation_NN1 of_IO principle_NN1 was_VBDZ limited_VVN to_II that_DD1 and_CC to_II cattle-trespass_NN1 ;_; it_PPH1 was_VBDZ not_XX nearly_RR so_RG sweeping_JJ as_II the_AT rule_NN1 expressed_VVN in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ,_, which_DDQ was_VBDZ reached_VVN by_II methods_NN2 extremely_RR characteristic_JJ of_IO judicial_JJ development_NN1 of_IO the_AT law_NN1 the_AT creation_NN1 of_IO new_JJ law_NN1 behind_II a_AT1 screen_NN1 of_IO analogies_NN2 drawn_VVN from_II existing_JJ law_NN1 ._. 
And_CC whatever_DDQV views_VVZ the_AT Exchequer_NN1 Chamber_NN1 may_VM have_VHI had_VHN about_II their_APPGE decision_NN1 ,_, succeeding_VVG generations_NN2 have_VH0 regarded_VVN it_PPH1 as_II the_AT starting-point_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 liability_NN1 wider_JJR than_CSN any_DD that_CST preceded_VVD it_PPH1 ._. 
Scope_NN1 of_IO extension_NN1 It_PPH1 seems_VVZ unsound_JJ ,_, then_RT ,_, to_TO dismiss_VVI the_AT rule_NN1 as_II a_AT1 convenient_JJ summary_NN1 of_IO the_AT theory_NN1 underlying_VVG several_DA2 specific_JJ torts_NN2 which_DDQ had_VHD existed_VVN long_RR before_II 1868_MC ,_, or_CC even_RR as_CSA the_AT old_JJ cattle-trespass_JJ rule_NN1 raised_VVN to_II a_AT1 high_JJ power_NN1 ._. 
The_AT substantial_JJ advances_NN2 which_DDQ it_PPH1 made_VVD on_II the_AT earlier_JJR law_NN1 were_VBDR two_MC :_: 1_MC1 ._. 
In_II the_AT direction_NN1 of_IO things_NN2 for_IF the_AT escape_NN1 of_IO which_DDQ an_AT1 occupier_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 is_VBZ subjected_VVN to_II strict_JJ liability._NNU 2_MC ._. 
In_II the_AT direction_NN1 of_IO the_AT persons_NN2 for_IF whose_DDQGE defaults_NN2 in_II31 connection_II32 with_II33 such_DA escape_VV0 the_AT occupier_NN1 is_VBZ vicariously_RR responsible_JJ ._. 
As_II21 to_II22 1_MC1 ,_, the_AT court_NN1 took_VVD a_AT1 rule_NN1 of_IO liability_NN1 which_DDQ had_VHD been_VBN more_RGR or_CC less_RGR clearly_RR perceived_VVN in_II31 connection_II32 with_II33 the_AT escape_NN1 of_IO fire_NN1 ,_, cattle_NN2 or_CC unruly_JJ beasts_NN2 ,_, and_CC extended_VVD it_PPH1 to_II the_AT escape_NN1 of_IO mischievous_JJ things_NN2 generally_RR ._. 
As_II21 to_II22 2_MC ,_, they_PPHS2 held_VVD in_II effect_NN1 that_CST the_AT occupier_NN1 from_II whose_DDQGE land_NN1 these_DD2 things_NN2 escaped_VVN and_CC did_VDD damage_VVI is_VBZ liable_JJ not_XX only_RR for_IF the_AT default_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE servant_NN1 ,_, but_CCB also_RR for_IF that_DD1 of_IO an_AT1 independent_JJ contractor_NN1 and_CC (_( as_CSA later_JJR decisions_NN2 show_VV0 )_) for_IF that_DD1 of_IO anyone_PN1 except_II a_AT1 stranger_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Absolute_JJ '_GE liability_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 misnomer_NN1 It_PPH1 was_VBDZ unfortunate_JJ that_CST Blackburn_NP1 J._NP1 chose_VVD to_TO describe_VVI liability_NN1 under_II the_AT rule_NN1 as_CSA resting_VVG upon_II '_GE an_AT1 absolute_JJ duty_NN1 to_TO keep_VVI it_PPH1 &lsqb;_( sc._NNU the_AT water_NN1 &rsqb;_) in_RP at_II his_APPGE peril_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Though_RR stated_VVN as_II a_AT1 rule_NN1 of_IO absolute_JJ liability_NN1 ,_, there_RL '_VBZ are_VBR so_RG many_DA2 exceptions_NN2 to_II it_PPH1 that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ doubtful_JJ whether_CSW there_EX is_VBZ much_DA1 of_IO the_AT rule_NN1 left_VVD ._. 
'_GE The_AT liability_NN1 may_VM be_VBI strict_JJ ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX absolute_JJ as_II the_AT exceptions_NN2 to_II the_AT rule_NN1 indicated_VVN by_II Blackburn_NP1 J._NP1 himself_PPX1 show_VV0 ._. 
Recently_RR ,_, moreover_RR ,_, as_CSA we_PPIS2 shall_VM see_VVI ,_, the_AT courts_NN2 have_VH0 tended_VVN to_TO erode_VVI and_CC rationalise_VVI the_AT rule_NN1 so_BCL21 as_BCL22 to_TO reduce_VVI the_AT ambit_NN1 of_IO strict_JJ liability_NN1 and_CC to_TO bring_VVI the_AT rule_NN1 more_RRR into_II31 line_II32 with_II33 the_AT predominant_JJ modern_JJ philosophy_NN1 of_IO no_AT liability_NN1 without_IW fault_NN1 ._. 
As_II a_AT1 result_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 development_NN1 the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 is_VBZ sometimes_RT unavailable_JJ at_II times_NNT2 when_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ most_RRT needed_VVN ,_, i.e._REX when_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 can_VM not_XX prove_VVI that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 was_VBDZ at_II fault_NN1 ._. 
SCOPE_NN1 OF_IO THE_AT RULE_NN1 Like_II all_DB broad_JJ formulations_NN2 of_IO principle_NN1 ,_, the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 had_VHD to_TO be_VBI worked_VVN out_RP in_II detail_NN1 by_II later_JJR decisions_NN2 ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN applied_VVN to_II a_AT1 remarkable_JJ variety_NN1 of_IO things_NN2 ._. 
Fire_NN1 ,_, gas_NN1 ,_, explosions_NN2 ,_, electricity_NN1 ,_, oil_NN1 ,_, noxious_JJ fumes_NN2 ,_, colliery_NN1 spoil_NN1 ,_, rusty_JJ wire_NN1 from_II a_AT1 decayed_JJ fence_NN1 ,_, vibrations_NN2 ,_, poisonous_JJ vegetation_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 flag-pole_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 '_GE chair-o-plane_NN1 '_GE and_CC even_RR (_( in_II a_AT1 case_NN1 of_IO very_RG questionable_JJ validity_NN1 )_) noxious_JJ persons_NN2 ._. 
As_CSA we_PPIS2 shall_VM see_VVI below_RL ,_, there_EX is_VBZ no_AT liability_NN1 under_II the_AT rule_NN1 unless_CS there_EX is_VBZ some_DD '_GE escape_NN1 '_GE from_II the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE land_NN1 ,_, but_CCB there_EX is_VBZ no_AT necessity_NN1 that_CST the_AT thing_NN1 be_VBI likely_JJ to_TO escape_VVI ._. 
What_DDQ matters_VVZ for_IF this_DD1 purpose_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST if_CS it_PPH1 escapes_VVZ it_PPH1 is_VBZ likely_JJ to_TO do_VDI mischief_NN1 and_CC this_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT meaning_NN1 to_TO be_VBI given_VVN to_II '_GE dangerous_JJ thing_NN1 '_GE in_II this_DD1 context_NN1 ._. 
Too_RG much_DA1 stress_NN1 should_VM not_XX be_VBI laid_VVN upon_II Blackburn_NP1 J._NP1 's_GE illustrations_NN2 in_II31 support_II32 of_II33 the_AT rule_NN1 since_CS new_JJ law_NN1 was_VBDZ being_VBG created_VVN ._. 
He_PPHS1 was_VBDZ certainly_RR not_XX purporting_VVG to_TO compile_VVI a_AT1 representative_JJ list_NN1 of_IO '_" extra-hazardous_58 '_GE activities_NN2 though_CS one_MC1 of_IO the_AT fundamental_JJ problems_NN2 about_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 is_VBZ perhaps_RR that_CST the_AT law_NN1 has_VHZ never_RR made_VVN up_RP its_APPGE mind_NN1 whether_CSW the_AT rule_NN1 is_VBZ aimed_VVN at_II such_DA activities_NN2 ._. 
Escape_VV0 necessary_JJ Unless_CS there_EX is_VBZ an_AT1 '_GE escape_NN1 '_GE of_IO the_AT substance_NN1 from_II the_AT land_NN1 where_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ kept_VVN ,_, there_EX is_VBZ no_AT liability_NN1 under_II the_AT rule_NN1 ;_; this_DD1 was_VBDZ the_AT ground_NN1 of_IO the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP '_GE decision_NN1 in_II Read_NP1 v._II Lyons_NP1 &amp;_CC Co_NP1 ._. 
Ltd._JJ ,_, where_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 was_VBDZ employed_VVN by_II the_AT Ministry_NN1 of_IO Supply_NN1 as_II an_AT1 inspector_NN1 of_IO munitions_NN2 in_II the_AT defendants_NN2 '_GE munitions_NN2 factory_NN1 and_CC ,_, in_II the_AT course_NN1 of_IO her_APPGE employment_NN1 there_EX was_VBDZ injured_VVN by_II the_AT explosion_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 shell_NN1 that_CST was_VBDZ being_VBG manufactured_VVN ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ admitted_VVN that_CST high_JJ explosive_JJ shells_NN2 were_VBDR dangerous_JJ ._. 
The_AT defendants_NN2 were_VBDR held_VVN not_XX liable_JJ ._. 
There_EX was_VBDZ no_AT allegation_NN1 of_IO negligence_NN1 on_II their_APPGE part_NN1 and_CC Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 was_VBDZ inapplicable_JJ because_CS there_EX had_VHD been_VBN no_NN1 '_GE escape_NN1 '_GE of_IO the_AT thing_NN1 that_CST inflicted_VVD the_AT injury_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Escape_NN1 '_GE was_VBDZ defined_VVN as_58 '_GE escape_NN1 from_II a_AT1 place_NN1 where_RRQ the_AT defendant_NN1 has_VHZ occupation_NN1 or_CC control_VV0 over_RP land_NN1 to_II a_AT1 place_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ outside_II his_APPGE occupation_NN1 or_CC control_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Viscount_NNB Simon_NP1 stated_VVD that_CST Rylands_NN2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 is_VBZ conditioned_VVN by_II two_MC elements_NN2 which_DDQ he_PPHS1 called_VVD (_( a_ZZ1 )_) '_GE the_AT condition_NN1 of_IO '_GE escape_NN1 '_GE from_II the_AT land_NN1 of_IO something_PN1 likely_JJ to_TO do_VDI mischief_NN1 if_CS it_PPH1 escapes_VVZ ,_, '_GE and_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) '_GE the_AT condition_NN1 of_IO '_GE non-natural_JJ '_GE use_NN1 of_IO the_AT land_NN1 ._. 
'_GE But_CCB the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP emphasised_VVD that_CST the_AT absence_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 '_GE escape_NN1 '_GE was_VBDZ the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE decision_NN1 ._. 
The_AT rule_NN1 is_VBZ probably_RR inapplicable_JJ to_II a_AT1 deliberate_JJ release_NN1 of_IO the_AT thing_NN1 ,_, the_AT cause_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 in_II that_DD1 situation_NN1 being_VBG trespass_NN1 ._. 
Personal_JJ injuries_NN2 The_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP in_II Read_NP1 v._II Lyons_NP1 also_RR considered_VVN whether_CSW under_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 a_AT1 plaintiff_NN1 can_VM recover_VVI damages_NN2 for_IF personal_JJ injuries_NN2 ._. 
According_II21 to_II22 Lord_NNB Macmillan_NP1 ,_, the_AT rule_NN1 '_GE derives_VVZ from_II a_AT1 conception_NN1 of_IO mutual_JJ duties_NN2 of_IO neighbouring_JJ landowners_NN2 '_GE and_CC is_VBZ therefore_RR inapplicable_JJ to_II personal_JJ injuries_NN2 ._. 
'_GE An_AT1 allegation_NN1 of_IO negligence_NN1 ,_, '_" he_PPHS1 continued_VVD ,_, '_GE is_VBZ in_RR21 general_RR22 essential_JJ to_II the_AT relevancy_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 action_NN1 of_IO reparation_NN1 for_IF personal_JJ injuries_NN2 ._. 
'_GE Viscount_NNB Simon_NP1 and_CC Lord_NNB Simonds_NP1 reserved_VVD their_APPGE opinions_NN2 on_II this_DD1 question_NN1 ,_, and_CC Lord_NNB Porter_NP1 considered_VVD that_CST opinions_NN2 expressed_VVD supporting_VVG the_AT application_NN1 of_IO the_AT rule_NN1 to_II personal_JJ injuries_NN2 are_VBR an_AT1 undoubted_JJ extension_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 ,_, '_GE and_CC may_VM some_DD day_NNT1 require_VVI examination_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Lord_NNB Macmillan_NP1 's_GE view_NN1 must_VM however_RR be_VBI considered_VVN in_II context_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ generally_RR accepted_VVN that_CST in_II the_AT related_JJ tort_NN1 of_IO nuisance_NN1 ,_, an_AT1 occupier_NN1 can_VM sue_VVI in_II31 respect_II32 of_II33 his_APPGE personal_JJ injuries_NN2 and_CC the_AT same_DA was_VBDZ established_VVN in_II the_AT tort_NN1 of_IO cattle_NN2 trespass_VV0 ._. 
Even_RR after_CS Read_VVN v._II Lyons_NP1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, there_EX is_VBZ no_AT reason_NN1 to_TO doubt_VVI the_AT correctness_NN1 of_IO decisions_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 Hale_NP1 v._II Jennings_NP1 Bros._NP2 in_II which_DDQ the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 held_VVD that_CST an_AT1 occupier_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 was_VBDZ entitled_VVN to_II damages_NN2 for_IF personal_JJ injuries_NN2 under_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ._. 
But_CCB before_CS Read_VVN v._II Lyons_NP1 ,_, the_AT courts_NN2 had_VHD gone_VVN further_RRR ,_, holding_VVG that_CST even_RR a_AT1 non-occupier_NN1 may_VM sue_VVI for_IF personal_JJ injuries_NN2 under_II the_AT rule_NN1 ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ probably_RR this_DD1 development_NN1 that_CST their_APPGE lordships_NN2 had_VHD in_II mind_NN1 ._. 
In_II Shiffman_NP1 v._II Order_NN1 of_IO St._NP1 John_NP1 ,_, for_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, the_AT plaintiff_NN1 was_VBDZ injured_VVN in_II Hyde_NP1 Park_NN1 when_CS he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ struck_VVN by_II a_AT1 falling_JJ flag-pole_NN1 belonging_VVG to_II the_AT defendants_NN2 ._. 
Although_CS it_PPH1 was_VBDZ found_VVN that_CST the_AT defendants_NN2 had_VHD been_VBN at_II fault_NN1 ,_, Atkinson_NP1 J._NP1 considered_VVD that_CST ,_, irrespective_II21 of_II22 this_DD1 ,_, the_AT defendants_NN2 would_VM have_VHI been_VBN liable_JJ under_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ._. 
Judged_VVN from_II a_AT1 strictly_RR historical_JJ point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 ,_, Lord_NNB Macmillan_NP1 's_GE approach_NN1 is_VBZ doubtless_RR correct_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ ,_, however_RR ,_, open_VV0 to_II the_AT criticism_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 helps_VVZ to_TO preserve_VVI the_AT anachronistic_JJ situation_NN1 in_II which_DDQ proprietary_JJ interests_NN2 receive_VV0 more_DAR protection_NN1 than_CSN the_AT interest_NN1 in_II physical_JJ security_NN1 ._. 
Perhaps_RR because_II21 of_II22 this_DD1 the_AT courts_NN2 have_VH0 in_II subsequent_JJ cases_NN2 generally_RR declined_VVN to_TO follow_VVI Lord_NNB Macmillan_NP1 's_GE view_NN1 ._. 
In_II Perry_NP1 v._II Kendricks_NP2 Transport_NN1 Ltd._JJ ,_, for_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, Parker_NP1 L.J._NP1 did_VDD not_XX '_GE think_VV0 it_PPH1 is_VBZ open_JJ to_II this_DD1 court_NN1 to_TO hold_VVI that_CST the_AT rule_NN1 applies_VVZ only_RR to_II damage_NN1 to_II adjoining_JJ land_NN1 or_CC to_II a_AT1 proprietary_JJ interest_NN1 in_II land_NN1 and_CC not_XX to_II personal_JJ injury_NN1 ._. 
'_GE In_II Weller_NP1 v._II Foot_NN1 and_CC Mouth_NN1 Disease_NN1 Research_NN1 Institute_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, Widgery_NP1 J._NP1 briefly_RR held_VVN that_CST the_AT defendants_NN2 could_VM not_XX be_VBI liable_JJ to_II the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 under_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ,_, because_CS the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 ,_, who_PNQS were_VBDR cattle_NN2 auctioneers_NN2 ,_, had_VHD no_AT interest_NN1 in_II any_DD land_NN1 to_II which_DDQ the_AT virus_NN1 could_VM have_VHI escaped_VVN ._. 
The_AT plaintiffs_NN2 '_GE loss_NN1 of_IO business_NN1 was_VBDZ pecuniary_JJ or_CC economic_JJ damage_NN1 ._. 
Widgery_NP1 J._NP1 's_GE conclusion_NN1 that_CST the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 could_VM not_XX recover_VVI under_II the_AT rule_NN1 for_IF economic_JJ injury_NN1 alone_RR seems_VVZ perfectly_RR correct_JJ at_II that_DD1 time_NNT1 ._. 
But_CCB this_DD1 was_VBDZ not_XX due_JJ ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ suggested_VVN ,_, to_II the_AT absence_NN1 of_IO any_DD proprietary_JJ interest_NN1 on_II their_APPGE part_NN1 ,_, but_CCB because_II21 of_II22 the_AT restrictive_JJ attitude_NN1 of_IO the_AT law_NN1 towards_II the_AT recovery_NN1 of_IO pecuniary_JJ loss_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ not_XX the_AT consequence_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 tangible_JJ ,_, physical_JJ injury_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 does_VDZ not_XX in_II the_AT least_RRT mean_VV0 that_CST in_II all_DB cases_NN2 a_AT1 plaintiff_NN1 can_VM not_XX recover_VVI under_II the_AT rule_NN1 unless_CS he_PPHS1 proves_VVZ interference_NN1 to_II his_APPGE proprietary_JJ interest_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ submitted_VVN with_IW respect_NN1 that_CST Widgery_NP1 J._NP1 's_GE view_NN1 is_VBZ inconsistent_JJ with_IW the_AT trend_NN1 of_IO modern_JJ authorities_NN2 and_CC should_VM not_XX be_VBI followed_VVN ._. 
Land_VV0 The_AT rule_NN1 as_CSA originally_RR formulated_VVN refers_VVZ to_II a_AT1 person_NN1 who_PNQS for_IF his_APPGE own_DA purposes_NN2 brings_VVZ on_II21 to_II22 his_APPGE lands_NN2 and_CC collects_VVZ and_CC keeps_VVZ there_RL anything_PN1 likely_JJ to_TO do_VDI mischief_NN1 if_CS it_PPH1 escapes_VVZ ._. 
The_AT words_NN2 for_IF his_APPGE own_DA purposes_NN2 will_VM be_VBI discussed_VVN later_RRR ._. 
The_AT rule_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX confined_VVN to_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO adjacent_JJ freeholders_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 applies_VVZ ,_, for_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, to_II a_AT1 local_JJ authority_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ required_VVN by_II statute_NN1 to_TO receive_VVI sewage_NN1 into_II its_APPGE sewers_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 applies_VVZ where_RRQ the_AT defendant_NN1 has_VHZ a_AT1 franchise_NN1 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 right_JJ to_TO use_VVI land_NN1 founded_VVN on_II a_AT1 statute_NN1 or_CC upon_II private_JJ permission_NN1 ,_, e.g._REX for_IF laying_VVG pipes_NN2 to_TO carry_VVI gas_NN1 ,_, or_CC cables_NN2 for_IF electricity_NN1 ._. 
One_PN1 who_PNQS uses_VVZ land_NN1 by_II permission_NN1 of_IO the_AT tenant_NN1 or_CC occupier_NN1 (_( i.e._REX a_AT1 licensee_NN1 )_) and_CC brings_VVZ on_II21 to_II22 it_PPH1 a_AT1 dangerous_JJ thing_NN1 is_VBZ liable_JJ for_IF its_APPGE escape_NN1 ._. 
Although_CS there_EX are_VBR conflicting_JJ dicta_NN2 it_PPH1 seems_VVZ that_CST an_AT1 owner_NN1 who_PNQS is_VBZ not_XX in_II occupation_NN1 of_IO the_AT land_NN1 at_II the_AT time_NNT1 when_RRQ the_AT thing_NN1 escapes_NN2 is_VBZ liable_JJ if_CS he_PPHS1 has_VHZ authorised_VVN the_AT accumulation_NN1 ,_, and_CC that_CST anyone_PN1 who_PNQS collects_VVZ the_AT dangerous_JJ thing_NN1 and_CC has_VHZ control_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 at_II the_AT time_NNT1 of_IO the_AT escape_NN1 would_VM be_VBI liable_JJ ,_, perhaps_RR even_CS21 when_CS22 he_PPHS1 is_VBZ carrying_VVG it_PPH1 along_II the_AT highway_NN1 and_CC it_PPH1 escapes_VVZ therefrom_RR ._. 
Non-natural_JJ user_NN1 For_IF some_DD time_NNT1 before_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 the_AT courts_NN2 had_VHD been_VBN concerned_JJ with_IW the_AT extent_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 person_NN1 's_GE liability_NN1 for_IF the_AT escape_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 accumulation_NN1 of_IO water_NN1 from_II his_APPGE land_NN1 during_II the_AT normal_JJ course_NN1 of_IO mining_VVG operations_NN2 ._. 
Their_APPGE conclusions_NN2 may_VM be_VBI formulated_VVN as_CSA follows_VVZ :_: if_CS A_ZZ1 conducts_VVZ mining_VVG operations_NN2 on_II his_APPGE own_DA land_NN1 in_II such_DA a_AT1 way_NN1 as_CSA to_TO cause_VVI water_NN1 to_TO flood_VVI his_APPGE neighbour_NN1 's_VBZ mine_PPGE and_CC the_AT inundation_NN1 is_VBZ due_II21 to_II22 mere_JJ gravitation_NN1 ,_, A_ZZ1 is_VBZ not_XX liable_JJ (_( or_CC at_RR21 least_RR22 he_PPHS1 is_VBZ not_XX strictly_RR liable_JJ under_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 )_) ,_, but_CCB if_CS the_AT flooding_NN1 is_VBZ due_JJ to_II A_ZZ1 's_VBZ accumulation_NN1 of_IO the_AT water_NN1 (_( e.g._REX by_II pumping_VVG )_) ,_, A_ZZ1 is_VBZ liable_JJ ._. 
This_DD1 distinction_NN1 was_VBDZ developed_VVN in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 into_II the_AT rule_NN1 that_CST as_II a_AT1 prerequisite_NN1 to_II liability_NN1 the_AT defendant_NN1 must_VM have_VHI brought_VVN onto_II the_AT land_NN1 something_PN1 '_GE which_DDQ was_VBDZ not_XX naturally_RR there_RL ._. 
'_" As_CSA one_MC1 author_NN1 has_VHZ put_VVN it_PPH1 ,_, non-natural_JJ use_NN1 was_VBDZ originally_RR '_GE an_AT1 expression_NN1 of_IO the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 has_VHZ artificially_RR introduced_VVN onto_II the_AT land_NN1 a_AT1 new_JJ and_CC dangerous_JJ substance_NN1 ._. 
'_" This_DD1 term_NN1 '_GE natural_JJ '_GE is_VBZ inherently_RR confusing_JJ for_IF it_PPH1 has_VHZ two_MC distinct_JJ meanings_NN2 ._. 
In_II its_APPGE primary_JJ sense_NN1 it_PPH1 signifies_58 '_GE that_DD1 which_DDQ exists_VVZ in_RP or_CC by_II nature_NN1 and_CC is_VBZ not_XX artificial_JJ ._. 
'_GE The_AT term_NN1 was_VBDZ used_VVN in_II this_DD1 sense_NN1 by_II Lord_NNB Cairns_NP1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ._. 
It_PPH1 also_RR means_VVZ ,_, however_RR ,_, '_" that_DD1 which_DDQ is_VBZ ordinary_JJ and_CC usual_JJ ,_, even_CS21 though_CS22 it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI artificial_JJ ._. 
'_" As_CSA Professor_NNB Newark_NP1 has_VHZ pointed_VVN out_RP ,_, the_AT courts_NN2 now_RT understand_VV0 non-natural_JJ user_NN1 in_II the_AT latter_DA sense_NN1 ._. 
The_AT most_RGT frequently_RR quoted_VVN definition_NN1 of_IO non-natural_JJ user_NN1 is_VBZ that_DD1 given_VVN by_II the_AT Judicial_JJ Committee_NN1 in_II Rickards_NP2 v._II Lothian_NP1 ,_, '_" It_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI some_DD special_JJ use_NN1 bringing_VVG with_IW it_PPH1 increased_JJ danger_NN1 to_II others_NN2 and_CC must_VM not_XX merely_RR be_VBI the_AT ordinary_JJ use_NN1 of_IO the_AT land_NN1 or_CC such_DA a_AT1 use_NN1 as_CSA is_VBZ proper_JJ for_IF the_AT general_JJ benefit_NN1 of_IO the_AT community_NN1 ._. 
'_" It_PPH1 is_VBZ suggested_VVN that_CST the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO non-natural_JJ user_NN1 is_VBZ now_RT understood_VVN by_II the_AT courts_NN2 as_CSA being_VBG similar_JJ to_II the_AT idea_NN1 of_IO unreasonable_JJ risk_NN1 in_II negligence_NN1 ._. 
In_II Read_NP1 v._II Lyons_NP1 ,_, Lord_NNB Porter_NP1 commented_VVD that_DD1 '_VBZ non-natural_JJ user_NN1 seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO fact_NN1 ..._... and_CC in_II deciding_VVG this_DD1 question_NN1 I_PPIS1 think_VV0 that_CST all_DB the_AT circumstances_NN2 of_IO time_NNT1 and_CC practice_NN1 of_IO mankind_NN1 must_VM be_VBI taken_VVN into_II consideration_NN1 so_CS21 that_CS22 what_DDQ may_VM be_VBI regarded_VVN as_CSA dangerous_JJ or_CC non-natural_JJ may_VM vary_VVI according_II21 to_II22 the_AT circumstances_NN2 ._. 
'_GE The_AT courts_NN2 balance_VV0 the_AT magnitude_NN1 of_IO the_AT risk_NN1 (_( i.e._REX the_AT extent_NN1 of_IO the_AT accumulation_NN1 and_CC the_AT injury_NN1 potential_NN1 of_IO the_AT thing_NN1 accumulated_VVN )_) with_IW the_AT desirability_NN1 or_CC necessity_NN1 of_IO the_AT activity_NN1 from_II the_AT point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 of_IO the_AT defendant_NN1 and_CC the_AT public_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 equating_VVG of_IO non-natural_JJ user_NN1 with_IW unreasonable_JJ risk_NN1 in_II negligence_NN1 seems_VVZ to_TO have_VHI been_VBN recognised_VVN by_II MacKenna_NP1 J._NP1 in_II Mason_NP1 v._II Levy_NP1 Auto_NN1 parts_NN2 of_IO England_NP1 Ltd_JJ ._. 
The_AT defendants_NN2 stored_VVN on_II their_APPGE land_NN1 large_JJ quantities_NN2 of_IO combustible_JJ materials_NN2 which_DDQ ignited_VVD in_II mysterious_JJ circumstances_NN2 ._. 
In_II determining_VVG whether_CSW the_AT defendants_NN2 ought_VMK to_TO be_VBI held_VVN liable_JJ under_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ,_, the_AT learned_JJ judge_NN1 considered_VVD that_CST he_PPHS1 ought_VMK to_TO pay_VVI regard_NN1 to_II (_( i_ZZ1 )_) the_AT quantities_NN2 of_IO combustible_JJ materials_NN2 which_DDQ the_AT defendants_NN2 brought_VVN onto_II the_AT land_NN1 ;_; (_( ii_MC )_) the_AT way_NN1 in_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 stored_VVD them_PPHO2 ;_; and_CC (_( iii_MC )_) the_AT character_NN1 of_IO the_AT neighbourhood_NN1 ._. 
'_" It_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI ,_, '_" he_PPHS1 concluded_VVD ,_, '_" that_CST these_DD2 considerations_NN2 would_VM also_RR justify_VVI a_AT1 finding_NN1 of_IO negligence_NN1 ._. 
If_CS that_DD1 is_VBZ so_RR ,_, the_AT end_NN1 would_VM be_VBI the_AT same_DA as_CSA I_PPIS1 have_VH0 reached_VVN by_II a_AT1 more_RGR laborious_JJ ,_, and_CC perhaps_RR more_RGR questionable_JJ route_NN1 ._. 
'_" As_CSA Lord_NNB Porter_NP1 recognised_VVD ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ inevitable_JJ that_CST the_AT courts_NN2 '_GE view_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ is_VBZ non-natural_JJ should_VM change_VVI in_II31 response_II32 to_II33 changing_VVG social_JJ conditions_NN2 and_CC needs_NN2 ._. 
A_AT1 striking_JJ illustration_NN1 of_IO such_DA a_AT1 change_NN1 is_VBZ afforded_VVN by_II a_AT1 comparison_NN1 of_IO some_DD of_IO the_AT dicta_NN2 in_II Read_NP1 v._II Lyons_NP1 and_CC the_AT case_NN1 of_IO Rainham_NP1 Chemical_NN1 Works_VVZ Ltd._JJ v._II Belvedere_NP1 Fish_NP1 Guano_NP1 Co_NP1 ._. 
In_II the_AT former_DA ,_, Lord_NNB Macmillan_NP1 hesitated_VVD '_" to_TO hold_VVI that_CST in_II these_DD2 days_NNT2 and_CC in_II an_AT1 industrial_JJ community_NN1 it_PPH1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 non-natural_JJ use_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 to_TO build_VVI a_AT1 factory_NN1 on_II it_PPH1 and_CC conduct_VVI there_RL the_AT manufacture_NN1 of_IO explosives_NN2 ._. 
'_GE The_AT House_NN1 declined_VVD to_TO consider_VVI itself_PPX1 bound_VVN by_II the_AT Rainham_NP1 Chemicals_NN2 case_NN1 where_CS it_PPH1 seems_VVZ to_TO have_VHI been_VBN taken_VVN for_IF granted_VVN that_CST such_DA an_AT1 activity_NN1 constituted_VVD a_AT1 non-natural_JJ use_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 ._. 
The_AT identification_NN1 of_IO non-natural_JJ user_NN1 with_IW conduct_NN1 creating_VVG an_AT1 abnormal_JJ risk_NN1 that_CST ought_VMK not_XX to_TO be_VBI borne_VVN by_II the_AT public_NN1 has_VHZ given_VVN to_II the_AT courts_NN2 a_AT1 device_NN1 for_IF determining_JJ liability_NN1 in_II31 accordance_II32 with_II33 what_DDQ they_PPHS2 consider_VV0 to_TO be_VBI public_JJ policy_NN1 ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ no_AT objective_JJ universal_JJ test_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ is_VBZ non-natural_JJ ._. 
The_AT court_NN1 must_VM make_VVI its_APPGE own_DA value_NN1 judgment_NN1 on_II the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE conduct_NN1 ,_, taking_VVG into_II account_NN1 its_APPGE social_JJ utility_NN1 and_CC the_AT care_NN1 with_IW which_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ carried_VVN out_RP ._. 
Because_II21 of_II22 this_DD1 some_DD of_IO the_AT early_JJ cases_NN2 may_VM require_VVI consideration_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 may_VM well_RR be_VBI ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, that_DD1 courts_VVZ in_II the_AT future_NN1 will_VM be_VBI reluctant_JJ to_TO hold_VVI that_CST the_AT use_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 for_IF the_AT supply_NN1 of_IO power_NN1 or_CC other_JJ necessities_NN2 to_II a_AT1 great_JJ city_NN1 is_VBZ non-natural_JJ ._. 
The_AT following_JJ have_VH0 in_II the_AT past_NN1 been_VBN regarded_VVN as_II a_AT1 natural_JJ user_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 ;_; water_NN1 installations_NN2 in_II a_AT1 house_NN1 or_CC flat_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 fire_NN1 in_II a_AT1 domestic_JJ grate_NN1 ,_, burning_JJ stubble_NN1 in_II the_AT normal_JJ course_NN1 of_IO agriculture_NN1 ,_, electric_JJ wiring_NN1 and_CC gas_NN1 pipes_NN2 in_II a_AT1 house_NN1 or_CC shop_NN1 ,_, the_AT ordinary_JJ working_NN1 of_IO mines_NN2 and_CC minerals_NN2 on_II land_NN1 ,_, erecting_VVG or_CC pulling_VVG down_RP houses_NN2 or_CC walls_NN2 ,_, trees_NN2 whether_CSW planted_VVN or_CC self-sown_JJ (_( if_CS not_XX poisonous_JJ )_) ._. 
Generating_JJ steam_NN1 on_II a_AT1 steamship_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX '_GE non-natural_JJ ._. 
'_GE But_CCB the_AT storing_NN1 of_IO water_NN1 as_CSA in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ,_, or_CC industrial_JJ water_NN1 under_II pressure_NN1 ,_, or_CC gas_NN1 and_CC electricity_NN1 in_II bulk_NN1 in_II mains_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 non-natural_JJ use_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN held_VVN that_CST keeping_VVG a_AT1 motor-car_NN1 in_II a_AT1 garage_NN1 with_IW petrol_NN1 in_II the_AT tank_NN1 ,_, and_CC a_AT1 motor-coach_NN1 in_II a_AT1 parking_NN1 ground_NN1 after_II the_AT tank_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN emptied_VVN is_VBZ a_AT1 non-natural_JJ use_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT decisions_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN criticised_VVN ._. 
Things_NN2 naturally_RR on_II the_AT land_NN1 The_AT distinction_NN1 between_II natural_JJ and_CC non-natural_JJ user_NN1 has_VHZ at_II times_NNT2 been_VBN confused_VVN with_IW the_AT distinction_NN1 between_II things_NN2 naturally_RR on_II the_AT land_NN1 and_CC things_NN2 artificially_RR there_RL ._. 
The_AT former_DA defines_VVZ the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO the_AT user_NN1 of_IO the_AT land_NN1 ;_; the_AT latter_DA the_AT cause_NN1 of_IO accumulation_NN1 thereon_RR ._. 
Only_RR when_CS it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN determined_VVN that_CST the_AT accumulation_NN1 on_II the_AT land_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 deliberate_JJ one_PN1 ,_, need_VV0 the_AT court_NN1 consider_VVI whether_CSW the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE user_NN1 is_VBZ non-natural_JJ ._. 
The_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 applies_VVZ only_RR to_II things_NN2 which_DDQ the_AT occupier_NN1 brings_VVZ onto_II his_APPGE land_NN1 and_CC collects_VVZ and_CC keeps_VVZ there_RL ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ quickly_RR established_VVN that_CST the_AT occupier_NN1 could_VM not_XX be_VBI liable_JJ under_II the_AT rule_NN1 merely_RR for_IF permitting_VVG a_AT1 spontaneous_JJ accumulation_NN1 (_( e.g._REX of_IO water_NN1 ,_, vegetation_NN1 ,_, birds_NN2 )_) on_II his_APPGE land_NN1 ,_, or_CC even_RR for_IF inducing_VVG a_AT1 spontaneous_JJ accumulation_NN1 as_II an_AT1 undesired_JJ by-product_NN1 of_IO the_AT normal_JJ working_NN1 of_IO the_AT land_NN1 ._. 
In_II Pontardawe_NP1 R.D.C._NP1 v._II Moore-Gwyn_NP1 ,_, for_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, there_EX was_VBDZ no_AT liability_NN1 for_IF the_AT fall_NN1 of_IO rocks_NN2 from_II an_AT1 outcrop_NN1 ,_, when_CS the_AT fall_NN1 was_VBDZ due_II21 to_II22 the_AT natural_JJ process_NN1 of_IO weathering_NN1 ._. 
An_AT1 occupier_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, is_VBZ not_XX liable_JJ to_II his_APPGE neighbour_NN1 under_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 for_IF damage_NN1 caused_VVN by_II ordinary_JJ trees_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR self-sown_JJ because_CS they_PPHS2 are_VBR naturally_RR on_II the_AT land_NN1 ._. 
Nor_CC in_RR21 general_RR22 is_VBZ he_PPHS1 liable_JJ even_CS21 if_CS22 he_PPHS1 has_VHZ planted_VVN the_AT trees_NN2 because_CS he_PPHS1 has_VHZ not_XX used_VVN his_APPGE land_NN1 in_II an_AT1 extraordinary_JJ or_CC non-natural_JJ manner_NN1 ._. 
'_" To_TO grow_VVI a_AT1 tree_NN1 is_VBZ one_MC1 of_IO the_AT natural_JJ users_NN2 of_IO the_AT soil_NN1 ._. 
'_GE In_II contrast_NN1 ,_, in_II Crowhurst_NP1 v._II Amersham_NP1 Burial_NN1 Board_NN1 ,_, the_AT defendants_NN2 planted_VVN on_II their_APPGE land_NN1 a_AT1 yew_NN1 tree_NN1 which_DDQ grew_VVD so_BCL21 as_BCL22 to_TO project_VVI over_RP onto_II the_AT land_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 on_II which_DDQ cattle_NN2 were_VBDR pastured_VVN ._. 
The_AT leaves_NN2 of_IO yew_NN1 trees_NN2 are_VBR poisonous_JJ to_II cattle_NN2 ._. 
The_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE horse_NN1 ate_VVD some_DD leaves_NN2 and_CC died_VVD and_CC the_AT defendants_NN2 were_VBDR held_VVN liable_JJ under_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ not_XX in_II the_AT circumstances_NN2 a_AT1 natural_JJ use_NN1 of_IO the_AT land_NN1 to_TO plant_VVI on_II it_PPH1 a_AT1 poisonous_JJ tree_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 further_JJR illustration_NN1 of_IO the_AT application_NN1 of_IO these_DD2 principles_NN2 is_VBZ afforded_VVN by_II the_AT interesting_JJ case_NN1 of_IO Giles_NP1 v._II Walker_NP1 ._. 
Thistle-seed_NN1 was_VBDZ blown_VVN in_II large_JJ quantities_NN2 by_II the_AT wind_NN1 from_II the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE land_NN1 to_II that_DD1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ;_; it_PPH1 was_VBDZ held_VVN that_CST '_" there_EX can_VM be_VBI no_AT duty_NN1 as_II21 between_II22 adjoining_JJ occupiers_NN2 to_TO cut_VVI the_AT thistles_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ are_VBR the_AT natural_JJ growth_NN1 of_IO the_AT soil_NN1 ,_, '_GE and_CC that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX liable_JJ ._. 
Upon_II the_AT facts_NN2 the_AT decision_NN1 seems_VVZ to_TO have_VHI been_VBN correct_JJ so_RG far_RR as_CSA the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 goes_VVZ ,_, for_IF all_DB that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 had_VHD done_VDN was_VBDZ to_TO plough_VVI up_RP some_DD forest_NN1 land_NN1 on_II which_DDQ there_EX had_VHD previously_RR been_VBN no_AT thistles_NN2 but_CCB from_II which_DDQ ,_, for_IF some_DD unexplained_JJ reason_NN1 ,_, an_AT1 immense_JJ crop_NN1 of_IO them_PPHO2 sprang_VVD up_RP in_II two_MC successive_JJ years_NNT2 ._. 
But_CCB even_RR in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ,_, the_AT principle_NN1 seems_VVZ to_TO have_VHI been_VBN stated_VVN too_RG widely_RR ._. 
If_CS ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, an_AT1 occupier_NN1 deliberately_RR plants_NN2 weeds_VVZ in_II large_JJ quantities_NN2 ,_, he_PPHS1 would_VM surely_RR be_VBI liable_JJ under_II the_AT rule_NN1 for_IF damage_NN1 caused_VVN by_II their_APPGE escape_NN1 ,_, for_IF it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 natural_JJ use_NN1 of_IO one_PN1 's_GE land_NN1 to_TO cultivate_VVI weeds_NN2 in_II bulk_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI stressed_VVN that_CST although_CS a_AT1 natural_JJ condition_NN1 can_VM not_XX give_VVI rise_NN1 to_II liability_NN1 under_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 it_PPH1 may_VM still_RR constitute_VVI a_AT1 nuisance_NN1 for_IF which_DDQ an_AT1 occupier_NN1 may_VM be_VBI liable_JJ if_CS he_PPHS1 has_VHZ knowledge_NN1 or_CC means_NN of_IO knowledge_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE existence_NN1 and_CC if_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ reasonable_JJ to_TO require_VVI him_PPHO1 to_TO take_VVI the_AT necessary_JJ steps_NN2 to_TO abate_VVI it_PPH1 ._. 
Moreover_RR ,_, an_AT1 occupier_NN1 may_VM be_VBI liable_JJ if_CS he_PPHS1 deliberately_RR causes_VVZ the_AT escape_NN1 of_IO things_NN2 naturally_RR on_II his_APPGE land_NN1 ._. 
DEFENCES_NN2 TO_II THE_AT RULE_NN1 In_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 possible_JJ defences_NN2 to_II the_AT rule_NN1 were_VBDR no_AT more_DAR than_CSN outlined_VVN and_CC we_PPIS2 must_VM look_VVI to_II later_JJR decisions_NN2 for_IF their_APPGE development_NN1 ._. 
Consent_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 Where_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 has_VHZ expressly_RR or_CC impliedly_RR consented_VVN to_II the_AT presence_NN1 of_IO the_AT source_NN1 of_IO danger_NN1 and_CC there_EX has_VHZ been_VBN no_AT negligence_NN1 on_II41 the_II42 part_II43 of_II44 the_AT defendant_NN1 ,_, the_AT defendant_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX liable_JJ ._. 
The_AT exception_NN1 merely_RR illustrates_VVZ the_AT general_JJ defence_NN1 ,_, volenti_NN2 non_FU fit_JJ injuria_NN1 ,_, and_CC would_VM not_XX need_VVI special_JJ mention_NN1 here_RL but_II21 for_II22 the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 and_CC the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP have_VH0 considered_VVN it_PPH1 expedient_JJ to_TO take_VVI particular_JJ notice_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 ._. 
The_AT main_JJ application_NN1 of_IO the_AT principle_NN1 of_IO implied_JJ consent_NN1 is_VBZ found_VVN in_II cases_NN2 where_RRQ different_JJ floors_NN2 in_II the_AT same_DA building_NN1 are_VBR occupied_VVN by_II different_JJ persons_NN2 and_CC the_AT tenant_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 lower_JJR floor_NN1 suffers_VVZ damage_NN1 as_II the_AT result_NN1 of_IO water_NN1 escaping_VVG from_II an_AT1 upper_JJ floor_NN1 ._. 
In_II a_AT1 block_NN1 of_IO premises_NN2 each_DD1 tenant_NN1 can_VM normally_RR be_VBI regarded_VVN as_CSA consenting_VVG to_II the_AT presence_NN1 of_IO water_NN1 on_II the_AT premises_NN2 if_CS the_AT supply_NN1 is_VBZ of_IO the_AT usual_JJ character_NN1 ,_, but_CCB not_XX if_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ of_IO quite_RG an_AT1 unusual_JJ kind_NN1 ,_, or_CC defective_JJ or_CC dangerous_JJ ,_, unless_CS he_PPHS1 actually_RR knows_VVZ of_IO that_DD1 ._. 
The_AT defendant_NN1 is_VBZ liable_JJ if_CS the_AT escape_NN1 was_VBDZ due_II21 to_II22 his_APPGE negligence_NN1 ._. 
Common_JJ benefit_NN1 Where_CS the_AT source_NN1 of_IO the_AT danger_NN1 is_VBZ maintained_VVN for_IF the_AT common_JJ benefit_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 and_CC the_AT defendant_NN1 ,_, the_AT defendant_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX liable_JJ for_IF its_APPGE escape_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ akin_JJ to_II the_AT defence_NN1 of_IO consent_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ,_, and_CC Bramwell_NP1 B._NP1 in_II Carstairs_NP1 v._II Taylor_NP1 treated_VVD it_PPH1 as_II the_AT same_DA thing_NN1 ._. 
There_RL A_ZZ1 had_VHD hired_VVN from_II B_ZZ1 the_AT ground_NN1 floor_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 warehouse_NN1 ,_, the_AT upper_JJ part_NN1 of_IO which_DDQ was_VBDZ occupied_VVN by_II B._NP1 Water_NN1 from_II the_AT roof_NN1 was_VBDZ collected_VVN by_II gutters_NN2 into_II a_AT1 box_NN1 ,_, from_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 was_VBDZ discharged_VVN by_II a_AT1 pipe_NN1 into_II drains_NN2 ._. 
A_AT1 rat_NN1 gnawed_VVD a_AT1 hole_NN1 in_II the_AT box_NN1 and_CC water_NN1 leaked_VVN through_II it_PPH1 and_CC injured_VVN A_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 goods_NN2 ._. 
There_EX was_VBDZ no_AT negligence_NN1 on_II B_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 part_VV0 ._. 
B_NP1 was_VBDZ held_VVN not_XX liable_JJ ._. 
In_RP Peters_VVZ v._II Prince_NN1 of_IO Wales_NP1 Theatre_NN1 (_( Birmingham_NP1 )_) Ltd._JJ ,_, the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 regarded_VVN '_GE common_JJ benefit_NN1 '_GE as_CSA no_AT more_DAR than_CSN an_AT1 element_NN1 (_( although_CS an_AT1 important_JJ element_NN1 )_) in_II showing_VVG consent_NN1 in_II cases_NN2 of_IO the_AT type_NN1 of_IO Carstairs_NP1 v._II Taylor_NP1 ._. 
In_II other_JJ judicial_JJ dicta_NN2 the_AT exception_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN regarded_VVN as_II an_AT1 independent_JJ one_PN1 ._. 
The_AT precise_JJ ambit_NN1 of_IO '_GE common_JJ benefit_NN1 '_GE has_VHZ never_RR been_VBN properly_RR determined_VVN ._. 
Until_II recently_RR ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, it_PPH1 was_VBDZ not_XX considered_VVN to_TO apply_VVI between_II consumers_NN2 of_IO gas_NN1 or_CC water_NN1 and_CC the_AT public_JJ industries_NN2 which_DDQ supply_VV0 them_PPHO2 ._. 
If_CS an_AT1 explosion_NN1 occurs_VVZ owing_II21 to_II22 the_AT escape_NN1 of_IO gas_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 does_VDZ not_XX seem_VVI to_TO have_VHI been_VBN suggested_VVN that_CST the_AT defences_NN2 of_IO common_JJ benefit_NN1 or_CC consent_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 would_VM be_VBI available_JJ to_II the_AT defendants_NN2 ,_, possibly_RR because_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 has_VHZ no_AT choice_NN1 as_II21 to_II22 the_AT source_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE supply_NN1 of_IO gas_NN1 ,_, whereas_CS in_II other_JJ cases_NN2 he_PPHS1 can_VM decide_VVI for_IF himself_PPX1 whether_CSW he_PPHS1 will_VM accept_VVI the_AT arrangement_NN1 offered_VVN to_II him_PPHO1 by_II his_APPGE landlord_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ submitted_VVN that_CST this_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT correct_JJ approach_NN1 ,_, but_CCB in_II Dunne_NP1 v._II North_ND1 Western_JJ Gas_NN1 Board_NN1 Sellers_NP1 L.J._NP1 ,_, delivering_VVG the_AT judgment_NN1 of_IO the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 ,_, considered_VVD that_CST common_JJ benefit_NN1 was_VBDZ an_AT1 important_JJ factor_NN1 ._. 
'_" It_PPH1 would_VM seem_VVI odd_JJ that_CST facilities_NN2 so_RG much_RR sought_VVN after_II by_II the_AT community_NN1 and_CC approved_VVN by_II their_APPGE legislators_NN2 should_VM be_VBI actionable_JJ at_II common_JJ law_NN1 because_CS they_PPHS2 have_VH0 been_VBN brought_VVN to_II the_AT places_NN2 where_RRQ they_PPHS2 are_VBR required_VVN and_CC have_VH0 escaped_VVN without_IW negligence_NN1 by_II an_AT1 unforeseen_JJ series_NN of_IO mishaps_NN2 ._. 
'_GE In_RR21 addition_RR22 the_AT learned_JJ judge_NN1 did_VDD not_XX think_VVI that_CST a_AT1 nationalised_JJ industry_NN1 can_VM be_VBI said_VVN to_TO accumulate_VVI a_AT1 substance_NN1 for_IF its_APPGE own_DA purposes_NN2 ._. 
Act_NN1 of_IO stranger_NN1 If_CS the_AT escape_NN1 was_VBDZ caused_VVN by_II the_AT unforeseeable_JJ act_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 stranger_NN1 ,_, the_AT rule_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX apply_VVI ._. 
In_II Box_NN1 v._II Jubb_NP1 the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE reservoir_NN1 overflowed_VVD partly_RR because_II21 of_II22 the_AT acts_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 neighbouring_JJ reservoir-owner_NN1 and_CC the_AT defendant_NN1 escaped_VVD liability_NN1 ._. 
The_AT plaintiff_NN1 also_RR failed_VVN in_II his_APPGE claim_NN1 in_II Rickards_NP2 v._II Lothian_NP1 where_CS some_DD third_MD person_NN1 deliberately_RR blocked_VVN up_RP the_AT waste-pipe_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 lavatory_NN1 basin_NN1 in_II the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE premises_NN2 ,_, thereby_RR flooding_VVG the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE premises_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN suggested_VVN that_CST the_AT defence_NN1 is_VBZ limited_VVN to_II the_AT '_GE mischievous_JJ ,_, deliberate_JJ and_CC conscious_JJ act_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 stranger_NN1 ,_, '_GE and_CC therefore_RR excludes_VVZ his_APPGE negligent_JJ acts_NN2 ._. 
However_RR ,_, as_CSA Jenkins_NP1 L.J._NP1 pointed_VVD out_RP in_II Perry_NP1 v._II Kendricks_NP2 Transport_NN1 Ltd._JJ the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO the_AT defence_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT absence_NN1 of_IO any_DD control_NN1 by_II the_AT defendant_NN1 over_II the_AT acts_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 stranger_NN1 on_II his_APPGE land_NN1 and_CC therefore_RR the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO the_AT stranger_NN1 's_GE conduct_NN1 is_VBZ irrelevant_JJ ._. 
The_AT onus_NN1 is_VBZ on_II the_AT defendant_NN1 to_TO show_VVI that_CST the_AT escape_NN1 was_VBDZ due_II21 to_II22 the_AT unforeseeable_JJ act_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 stranger_NN1 without_IW any_DD negligence_NN1 on_II his_APPGE own_DA part_NN1 ._. 
If_CS ,_, on_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, the_AT act_NN1 of_IO the_AT stranger_NN1 could_VM reasonably_RR have_VHI been_VBN anticipated_VVN or_CC its_APPGE consequences_NN2 prevented_VVD ,_, the_AT defendant_NN1 will_VM still_RR be_VBI liable_JJ ._. 
In_II North_ND1 western_JJ Utilities_NN2 Ltd._JJ v._II London_NP1 Guarantee_NN1 and_CC Accident_NN1 Co_NN1 ._. 
Ltd._JJ ,_, an_AT1 hotel_NN1 belonging_VVG to_II and_CC insured_VVN by_II the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 was_VBDZ destroyed_VVN in_II a_AT1 fire_NN1 caused_VVN by_II the_AT escape_NN1 and_CC ignition_NN1 of_IO natural_JJ gas_NN1 ._. 
The_AT gas_NN1 had_VHD percolated_VVN into_II the_AT hotel_NN1 basement_NN1 from_II a_AT1 fractured_JJ welded_JJ joint_JJ in_II an_AT1 intermediate_JJ pressure_NN1 main_NN1 situated_VVN below_II street_NN1 level_NN1 and_CC belonging_VVG to_II the_AT defendants_NN2 ,_, a_AT1 public_JJ utility_NN1 company_NN1 ._. 
The_AT fracture_NN1 was_VBDZ caused_VVN during_II the_AT construction_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 storm_NN1 sewer_NN1 ,_, involving_VVG underground_RL work_VV0 beneath_II the_AT defendants_NN2 '_GE mains_NN1 ,_, by_II a_AT1 third_MD party_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Privy_JJ Council_NN1 accepted_VVD that_CST the_AT defences_NN2 of_IO act_NN1 of_IO God_NP1 and_CC act_NN1 of_IO third_MD party_NN1 prevent_VV0 a_AT1 plaintiff_NN1 from_II succeeding_VVG in_II a_AT1 claim_NN1 based_VVN on_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 but_CCB held_VVD the_AT defendants_NN2 liable_JJ for_IF negligence_NN1 ._. 
The_AT risk_NN1 involved_JJ in_II the_AT defendants_NN2 '_GE operations_NN2 was_VBDZ so_RG great_JJ that_CST a_AT1 high_JJ degree_NN1 of_IO care_NN1 was_VBDZ expected_VVN of_IO them_PPHO2 ._. 
They_PPHS2 knew_VVD of_IO the_AT construction_NN1 of_IO the_AT sewer_NN1 ,_, and_CC they_PPHS2 ought_VMK to_TO have_VHI appreciated_VVN the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO damage_NN1 to_II their_APPGE mains_NN1 and_CC taken_VVN appropriate_JJ action_NN1 to_TO prevent_VVI or_CC rectify_VVI it_PPH1 ._. 
While_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ clear_JJ that_CST a_AT1 trespasser_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 '_GE stranger_NN1 '_GE for_IF this_DD1 purpose_NN1 ,_, we_PPIS2 can_VM only_RR conjecture_VVI who_PNQS else_RR is_VBZ included_VVN in_II the_AT term_NN1 ._. 
For_IF the_AT defaults_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE servants_NN2 in_II the_AT course_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE employment_NN1 ,_, the_AT occupier_NN1 is_VBZ of_RR21 course_RR22 liable_JJ ;_; he_PPHS1 is_VBZ also_RR liable_JJ for_IF the_AT negligence_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 independent_JJ contractor_NN1 unless_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ entirely_RR collateral_NN1 ;_; for_IF the_AT folly_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 lawful_JJ visitor_NN1 in_II tampering_VVG with_IW a_AT1 potentially_RR dangerous_JJ machine_NN1 provided_VVN for_IF his_APPGE amusement_NN1 ;_; and_CC it_PPH1 may_VM well_RR be_VBI for_IF the_AT misconduct_NN1 of_IO any_DD member_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE family_NN1 on_II the_AT premises_NN2 ,_, for_CS he_PPHS1 has_VHZ control_NN1 over_II them_PPHO2 ._. 
Moreover_RR ,_, it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN argued_VVN that_CST he_PPHS1 ought_VMK to_TO be_VBI responsible_JJ for_IF guests_NN2 or_CC licensees_NN2 on_II his_APPGE land_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB perhaps_RR a_AT1 distinction_NN1 ought_VMK to_TO be_VBI taken_VVN here_RL ._. 
It_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI harsh_JJ to_TO hold_VVI a_AT1 person_NN1 liable_JJ for_IF the_AT act_NN1 of_IO every_AT1 casual_JJ visitor_NN1 who_PNQS has_VHZ bare_JJ permission_NN1 to_TO enter_VVI his_APPGE land_NN1 and_CC of_IO whose_DDQGE propensities_NN2 to_II evil_NN1 he_PPHS1 may_VM know_VVI nothing_PN1 ;_; e.g._REX an_AT1 afternoon_NNT1 caller_NN1 who_PNQS leaves_VVZ the_AT garden_NN1 gate_NN1 open_JJ or_CC a_AT1 tramp_NN1 who_PNQS asks_VVZ for_IF a_AT1 can_NN1 of_IO water_NN1 and_CC leaves_VVZ the_AT tap_NN1 on_RP ._. 
Possibly_RR the_AT test_NN1 is_VBZ ,_, '_" Can_VM it_PPH1 be_VBI inferred_VVN from_II the_AT facts_NN2 of_IO the_AT particular_JJ case_NN1 that_CST the_AT occupier_NN1 had_VHD such_DA control_NN1 over_II the_AT licensee_NN1 or_CC over_II the_AT circumstances_NN2 which_DDQ made_VVD his_APPGE act_NN1 possible_JJ that_CST he_PPHS1 ought_VMK to_TO have_VHI prevented_VVN it_PPH1 ?_? 
If_CS so_RR ,_, the_AT occupier_NN1 is_VBZ liable_JJ ,_, otherwise_RR not_XX ._. 
'_GE In_II31 connection_II32 with_II33 this_DD1 exception_NN1 to_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ,_, we_PPIS2 must_VM consider_VVI whether_CSW the_AT rule_NN1 applies_VVZ to_II a_AT1 danger_NN1 created_VVN on_II the_AT premises_NN2 by_II the_AT occupier_NN1 's_GE predecessor_NN1 in_II title_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI inferred_VVN from_II the_AT decision_NN1 in_II the_AT Northwestern_JJ Utilities_NN2 case_NN1 that_CST if_CS the_AT occupier_NN1 knew_VVD or_CC might_NN1 with_IW reasonable_JJ care_NN1 have_VH0 ascertained_VVN ,_, that_CST the_AT danger_NN1 existed_VVD ,_, he_PPHS1 is_VBZ liable_JJ for_IF its_APPGE escape_NN1 ._. 
If_CS ,_, however_RR ,_, this_DD1 condition_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX satisfied_JJ ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ submitted_VVN that_CST he_PPHS1 ought_VMK not_XX to_TO be_VBI liable_JJ ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ no_AT direct_JJ decision_NN1 on_II the_AT point_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT rule_NN1 itself_PPX1 seems_VVZ to_TO make_VVI it_PPH1 essential_JJ that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 should_VM '_GE bring_VV0 on_II his_APPGE lands_NN2 '_GE the_AT danger_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ true_JJ that_CST this_DD1 is_VBZ qualified_VVN by_II the_AT North_ND1 western_JJ Utilities_NN2 case_NN1 ,_, but_CCB that_DD1 decision_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX apply_VVI to_II an_AT1 occupier_NN1 who_PNQS neither_RR knows_VVZ nor_CC could_VM reasonably_RR have_VHI discovered_VVN the_AT existence_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 danger_NN1 created_VVN by_II his_APPGE predecessor_NN1 ._. 
Moreover_RR ,_, Eve_NP1 J._NP1 in_II an_AT1 obiter_NN121 dictum_NN122 in_II Whitmores_NP2 Ltd._JJ v._II Stanford_NP1 said_VVD that_CST the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 does_VDZ not_XX extend_VVI to_II making_VVG the_AT owner_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 liable_JJ for_IF the_AT consequences_NN2 of_IO the_AT escape_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 dangerous_JJ element_NN1 brought_VVN on_II the_AT owner_NN1 's_GE land_NN1 by_II another_DD1 person_NN1 ,_, not_XX for_IF the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO the_AT owner_NN1 but_II21 for_II22 the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO that_DD1 other_JJ person_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ evident_JJ from_II the_AT Northwestern_JJ Utilities_NN2 case_NN1 that_CST once_CS the_AT defendant_NN1 proves_VVZ the_AT act_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 stranger_NN1 ,_, the_AT point_NN1 is_VBZ reached_VVN when_CS a_AT1 claim_NN1 based_VVN on_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 merges_VVZ into_II a_AT1 claim_NN1 in_II negligence_NN1 ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 if_CS there_EX is_VBZ no_AT fault_NN1 the_AT plaintiff_NN1 will_VM not_XX succeed_VVI ._. 
The_AT original_JJ basis_NN1 of_IO liability_NN1 under_II the_AT rule_NN1 was_VBDZ responsibility_NN1 for_IF the_AT creation_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 exceptional_JJ risk_NN1 which_DDQ happened_VVD to_TO ripen_VVI into_II injury_NN1 ._. 
By_II31 means_II32 of_II33 the_AT defence_NN1 of_IO act_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 stranger_JJR the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO the_AT liability_NN1 is_VBZ shifted_VVN to_II responsibility_NN1 for_IF culpable_JJ failure_NN1 to_TO control_VVI the_AT risk_NN1 ._. 
The_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 thus_RR ceases_VVZ to_TO be_VBI available_JJ at_II the_AT very_JJ moment_NN1 when_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 needs_VVZ it_PPH1 ._. 
One_PN1 can_VM compare_VVI liability_NN1 under_II the_AT rule_NN1 with_IW the_AT liability_NN1 at_II common_JJ law_NN1 for_IF dangerous_JJ animals_NN2 which_DDQ was_VBDZ stricter_JJR ._. 
It_PPH1 seems_VVZ that_CST the_AT non-malicious_JJ act_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 stranger_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX a_AT1 valid_JJ defence_NN1 to_II the_AT scienter_JJR action_NN1 ,_, because_CS it_PPH1 was_VBDZ within_II the_AT risk_NN1 that_CST must_VM be_VBI accepted_VVN by_II anyone_PN1 who_PNQS knowingly_RR chooses_VVZ to_TO keep_VVI a_AT1 dangerous_JJ animal_NN1 ._. 
Statutory_JJ authority_NN1 The_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 may_VM be_VBI excluded_VVN by_II statute_NN1 ._. 
Whether_CSW it_PPH1 is_VBZ so_RR or_CC not_XX is_VBZ a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO construction_NN1 of_IO the_AT particular_JJ statute_NN1 concerned_JJ ._. 
In_II Green_JJ v._II Chelsea_NP1 Waterworks_NN Co._NP1 ,_, for_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, a_AT1 main_JJ belonging_VVG to_II a_AT1 waterworks_NN company_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ was_VBDZ authorised_VVN by_II Parliament_NN1 to_TO lay_VVI the_AT main_JJ ,_, burst_VVN without_IW any_DD negligence_NN1 on_II41 the_II42 part_II43 of_II44 the_AT company_NN1 and_CC the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE premises_NN2 were_VBDR flooded_VVN ;_; the_AT company_NN1 was_VBDZ held_VVN not_XX liable_JJ ._. 
On_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, in_II Charing_NP1 Cross_NP1 Electricity_NN1 Co._NN1 v._II Hydraulic_JJ Power_NN1 Co._NN1 ,_, where_CS the_AT facts_NN2 were_VBDR similar_JJ ,_, the_AT defendants_NN2 were_VBDR held_VVN to_TO have_VHI no_AT exemption_NN1 upon_II the_AT interpretation_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE statute_NN1 ._. 
The_AT distinction_NN1 between_II the_AT cases_NN2 is_VBZ that_CST the_AT Hydraulic_JJ Power_NN1 Co._NN1 were_VBDR empowered_VVN by_II statute_NN1 to_TO supply_VVI water_NN1 for_IF industrial_JJ purposes_NN2 ,_, that_REX21 is_REX22 ,_, they_PPHS2 had_VHD permissive_JJ power_NN1 but_CCB not_XX a_AT1 mandatory_JJ authority_NN1 ,_, and_CC they_PPHS2 were_VBDR under_II no_AT obligation_NN1 to_TO keep_VVI their_APPGE mains_NN1 charged_VVN with_IW water_NN1 at_II high_JJ pressure_NN1 ,_, or_CC at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
The_AT Chelsea_NP1 Waterworks_NN Co._NP1 were_VBDR authorised_VVN by_II statute_NN1 to_TO lay_VVI mains_NN1 and_CC were_VBDR under_II a_AT1 statutory_JJ duty_NN1 to_TO maintain_VVI a_AT1 continuous_JJ supply_NN1 of_IO water_NN1 ;_; it_PPH1 was_VBDZ an_AT1 inevitable_JJ consequence_NN1 that_CST damage_NN1 would_VM be_VBI caused_VVN by_II occasional_JJ bursts_NN2 and_CC so_RR by_II necessary_JJ implication_NN1 the_AT statute_NN1 exempted_VVN them_PPHO2 from_II liability_NN1 where_CS there_EX was_VBDZ no_RR '_GE negligence_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Where_CS a_AT1 statutory_JJ authority_NN1 is_VBZ under_II a_AT1 mandatory_JJ obligation_NN1 to_TO supply_VVI a_AT1 service_NN1 ,_, whether_CSW with_IW a_AT1 saving_NN1 or_CC nuisance_NN1 clause_NN1 (_( that_DD1 nothing_PN1 shall_VM exonerate_VVI it_PPH1 from_II proceedings_NN2 for_IF nuisance_NN1 )_) or_CC whether_CSW without_RR such_DA a_AT1 clause_NN1 ,_, the_AT authority_NN1 is_VBZ under_II no_AT liability_NN1 for_IF anything_PN1 expressly_RR required_VVN by_II statute_NN1 to_TO be_VBI done_VDN ,_, or_CC reasonably_RR incidental_JJ to_II that_DD1 requirement_NN1 ,_, if_CS it_PPH1 was_VBDZ done_VDN without_IW negligence_NN1 ._. 
Where_CS the_AT statutory_JJ authority_NN1 is_VBZ merely_RR permissive_JJ ,_, with_IW no_AT clause_NN1 imposing_JJ liability_NN1 for_IF nuisance_NN1 ,_, the_AT authority_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX liable_JJ for_IF doing_VDG what_DDQ the_AT statute_NN1 authorises_VVZ ,_, provided_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX negligent_JJ ;_; but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ liable_JJ when_CS there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 clause_NN1 imposing_JJ liability_NN1 for_IF nuisance_NN1 ,_, even_CS21 if_CS22 it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX negligent_JJ ._. 
As_II21 to_II22 the_AT escape_NN1 of_IO water_NN1 from_II reservoirs_NN2 ,_, even_RR express_VV0 statutory_JJ authority_NN1 for_IF their_APPGE construction_NN1 will_VM not_XX by_II itself_PPX1 exonerate_VV0 their_APPGE undertakers_NN2 since_CS the_AT Reservoirs_NN2 (_( Safety_NN1 Provisions_NN2 )_) Act_NN1 1930_MC ,_, now_RT replaced_VVN by_II the_AT Reservoirs_NN2 Act_VV0 1975_MC ._. 
The_AT Dolgarrog_NP1 Dam_NN1 disaster_NN1 of_IO 1925_MC led_VVD to_II the_AT passing_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 legislation_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 reservoir_NN1 1,400_MC feet_NN2 above_II sea_NN1 level_NN1 and_CC holding_VVG 200_MC million_NNO gallons_NNU2 of_IO water_NN1 burst_NN1 and_CC caused_VVD great_JJ devastation_NN1 and_CC loss_NN1 of_IO life_NN1 ._. 
One_MC1 important_JJ question_NN1 in_II this_DD1 area_NN1 awaits_VVZ a_AT1 final_JJ answer_NN1 :_: if_CS ,_, on_II its_APPGE proper_JJ construction_NN1 ,_, the_AT statutory_JJ authority_NN1 exempts_VVZ the_AT undertaker_NN1 from_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 liability_NN1 and_CC imposes_VVZ only_RR an_AT1 obligation_NN1 to_TO use_VVI due_JJ care_NN1 ,_, upon_II whom_PNQO does_VDZ the_AT burden_NN1 of_IO proof_NN1 lie_VV0 ?_? 
A_AT1 bare_JJ majority_NN1 of_IO the_AT High_JJ Court_NN1 of_IO Australia_NP1 has_VHZ held_VVN that_CST the_AT burden_NN1 lies_VVZ upon_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 to_TO prove_VVI lack_NN1 of_IO such_DA care_NN1 ;_; but_CCB the_AT contrary_JJ arguments_NN2 of_IO the_AT minority_NN1 seem_VV0 more_RGR convincing_JJ in_II principle_NN1 and_CC allow_VV0 for_IF the_AT grave_JJ difficulties_NN2 facing_VVG a_AT1 plaintiff_NN1 with_IW the_AT task_NN1 of_IO proving_VVG negligence_NN1 against_II the_AT supplier_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 public_JJ utility_NN1 such_II21 as_II22 gas_NN1 or_CC electricity_NN1 ._. 
The_AT question_NN1 whether_CSW the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 applies_VVZ in_II all_DB its_APPGE strictness_NN1 to_II local_JJ authorities_NN2 has_VHZ been_VBN considered_VVN but_CCB not_XX decided_VVN ._. 
In_II Smeaton_NP1 v._II Ilford_NP1 Corporation_NN1 Upjohn_NP1 J._NP1 found_VVD it_PPH1 unnecessary_JJ to_TO express_VVI a_AT1 concluded_JJ view_NN1 on_II the_AT question_NN1 whether_CSW a_AT1 local_JJ authority_NN1 exercising_VVG statutory_JJ duties_NN2 is_VBZ altogether_RR outside_II the_AT rule_NN1 as_CSA suggested_VVN by_II Denning_NP1 L.J._NP1 ,_, or_CC prima_RR21 facie_RR22 within_II the_AT rule_NN1 subject_NN1 only_RR to_II express_JJ or_CC implied_VVD statutory_JJ modification_NN1 as_CSA tentatively_RR suggested_VVN by_II Evershed_JJ M.R._NNB in_II the_AT Pride_NN1 of_IO Derby_NP1 case_NN1 ._. 
Act_NN1 of_IO God_NP1 Where_CS the_AT escape_NN1 is_VBZ caused_VVN directly_RR by_II natural_JJ causes_NN2 without_IW human_JJ intervention_NN1 in_II '_GE circumstances_NN2 which_DDQ no_AT human_JJ foresight_NN1 can_VM provide_VVI against_II and_CC of_IO which_DDQ human_JJ prudence_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX bound_VVNK to_TO recognise_VVI the_AT possibility_NN1 ,_, '_GE the_AT defence_NN1 of_IO act_NN1 of_IO God_NP1 applies_VVZ ._. 
This_DD1 was_VBDZ recognised_VVN by_II Blackburn_NP1 J._NP1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 itself_PPX1 and_CC was_VBDZ first_MD applied_VVN in_II Nichols_NP1 v._II Marsland_NP1 ._. 
In_II this_DD1 case_NN1 the_AT defendant_NN1 for_IF many_DA2 years_NNT2 had_VHD been_VBN in_II31 possession_II32 of_II33 some_DD artificial_JJ ornamental_JJ lakes_NN2 formed_VVN by_II damming_VVG up_RP a_AT1 natural_JJ stream_NN1 ._. 
An_AT1 extraordinary_JJ rainfall_NN1 ,_, '_GE greater_JJR and_CC more_RGR violent_JJ than_CSN any_DD within_II the_AT memory_NN1 of_IO witnesses_NN2 '_GE broke_VVD down_RP the_AT artificial_JJ embankments_NN2 and_CC the_AT rush_NN1 of_IO escaping_JJ water_NN1 carried_VVD away_RL four_MC bridges_NN2 in_II31 respect_II32 of_II33 which_DDQ damage_VV0 the_AT plaintiff_NN1 sued_VVD ._. 
Judgment_NN1 was_VBDZ given_VVN for_IF the_AT defendant_NN1 ;_; the_AT jury_NN1 had_VHD found_VVN that_CST she_PPHS1 was_VBDZ not_XX negligent_JJ and_CC the_AT court_NN1 held_VVD that_CST she_PPHS1 ought_VMK not_XX to_TO be_VBI liable_JJ for_IF an_AT1 extraordinary_JJ act_NN1 of_IO nature_NN1 which_DDQ she_PPHS1 could_VM not_XX reasonably_RR anticipate_VVI ._. 
Whether_CSW a_AT1 particular_JJ occurrence_NN1 amounts_VVZ to_II an_AT1 act_NN1 of_IO God_NP1 is_VBZ a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO fact_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT tendency_NN1 of_IO the_AT courts_NN2 nowadays_RT is_VBZ to_TO restrict_VVI the_AT ambit_NN1 of_IO the_AT defence_NN1 ,_, not_XX because_CS strict_JJ liability_NN1 is_VBZ thought_VVN to_TO be_VBI desirable_JJ but_CCB because_CS increased_JJ knowledge_NN1 limits_VVZ the_AT unpredictable_JJ ._. 
In_II Greenock_NP1 Corporation_NN1 v._II Caledonian_JJ Ry._NP1 ,_, the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP criticised_JJ the_AT application_NN1 of_IO the_AT defence_NN1 in_II Nichols_NP1 v._II Marsland_NP1 ,_, and_CC four_MC of_IO their_APPGE lordships_NN2 cast_VV0 doubt_NN1 on_II the_AT finding_NN1 of_IO facts_NN2 by_II the_AT jury_NN1 in_II that_DD1 case_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Corporation_NN1 constructed_VVN a_AT1 concrete_JJ paddling_JJ pool_NN1 for_IF children_NN2 in_II the_AT bed_NN1 of_IO the_AT stream_NN1 and_CC to_TO do_VDI so_CS they_PPHS2 had_VHD to_TO alter_VVI the_AT course_NN1 of_IO the_AT stream_NN1 and_CC obstruct_VV0 the_AT natural_JJ flow_NN1 of_IO the_AT water_NN1 ._. 
Owing_II21 to_II22 a_AT1 rainfall_NN1 of_IO extraordinary_JJ violence_NN1 ,_, the_AT stream_NN1 overflowed_VVD at_II the_AT pond_NN1 ,_, and_CC a_AT1 great_JJ volume_NN1 of_IO water_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ would_VM normally_RR have_VHI been_VBN carried_VVN off_RP by_II the_AT stream_NN1 ,_, poured_VVN down_II a_AT1 public_JJ street_NN1 into_II the_AT town_NN1 and_CC caused_VVD damage_NN1 to_II the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 '_GE property_NN1 ._. 
The_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP held_JJ that_CST the_AT rainfall_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX an_AT1 act_NN1 of_IO God_NP1 and_CC that_CST the_AT Corporation_NN1 were_VBDR liable_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ their_APPGE duty_NN1 '_GE so_RR to_TO work_VVI as_CSA to_TO make_VVI proprietors_NN2 or_CC occupiers_NN2 on_II a_AT1 lower_JJR level_NN1 as_CSA secure_JJ against_II injury_NN1 as_CSA they_PPHS2 would_VM have_VHI been_VBN had_VHN nature_NN1 not_XX been_VBN interfered_VVN with_IW ._. 
'_GE Similar_JJ considerations_NN2 apply_VV0 to_II an_AT1 extraordinary_JJ high_JJ wind_NN1 and_CC an_AT1 extraordinary_JJ high_JJ tide_NN1 ._. 
Lightning_NN1 ,_, earthquakes_NN2 ,_, cloudbursts_NN2 and_CC tornadoes_NN2 may_VM be_VBI acts_NN2 of_IO God_NP1 but_CCB there_EX seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI no_AT English_JJ decision_NN1 in_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 have_VH0 been_VBN involved_VVN ._. 
In_II law_NN1 ,_, then_RT ,_, the_AT essence_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 act_NN1 of_IO God_NP1 is_VBZ not_XX so_RG much_RR a_AT1 phenomenon_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ sometimes_RT attributed_VVN to_II a_AT1 positive_JJ intervention_NN1 of_IO the_AT forces_NN2 of_IO nature_NN1 ,_, but_CCB a_AT1 process_NN1 of_IO nature_NN1 not_XX due_II21 to_II22 the_AT act_NN1 of_IO man_NN1 and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ this_DD1 negative_JJ side_NN1 which_DDQ deserves_VVZ emphasis_NN1 ._. 
The_AT criterion_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX whether_CSW31 or_CSW32 not_CSW33 the_AT event_NN1 could_VM reasonably_RR be_VBI anticipated_VVN ,_, but_CCB whether_CSW31 or_CSW32 not_CSW33 human_JJ foresight_NN1 and_CC prudence_NN1 could_VM reasonably_RR recognise_VVI the_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO such_DA an_AT1 event_NN1 ._. 
Even_RR in_II such_DA limited_JJ form_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, this_DD1 defence_NN1 ,_, like_II the_AT defence_NN1 of_IO act_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 stranger_NN1 ,_, shifts_VVZ the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 from_II responsibility_NN1 for_IF the_AT creation_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 exceptional_JJ risk_NN1 to_II culpable_JJ failure_NN1 to_TO control_VVI that_DD1 risk_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 has_VHZ been_VBN criticised_VVN on_II the_AT ground_NN1 that_CST an_AT1 accidental_JJ escape_NN1 caused_VVN by_II the_AT forces_NN2 of_IO nature_NN1 is_VBZ within_II the_AT risk_NN1 that_CST must_VM be_VBI accepted_VVN by_II the_AT defendant_NN1 when_CS he_PPHS1 accumulates_VVZ the_AT substance_NN1 on_II his_APPGE land_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA Scrutton_NP1 L.J._NP1 put_VVD it_PPH1 in_II his_APPGE strong_JJ dissenting_JJ judgment_NN1 in_II Att._NP1 -Gen._NNB v._NNU Cory_JJ Bros._NP2 ,_, '_GE the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST an_AT1 artificial_JJ danger_NN1 escaped_VVN through_II natural_JJ causes_NN2 was_VBDZ no_AT excuse_NN1 to_II the_AT person_NN1 who_PNQS brought_VVD an_AT1 artificial_JJ danger_NN1 there_RL ._. 
'_GE Nevertheless_RR ,_, the_AT defence_NN1 is_VBZ now_RT firmly_RR part_NN1 of_IO the_AT law_NN1 and_CC brings_VVZ the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 closer_RRR to_II the_AT tort_NN1 of_IO negligence_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA Lord_NNB Greene_NP1 M.R._NNB accepted_VVN in_II J._NP1 J._NP1 Makin_NP1 Ltd._JJ v._II L.N._NP1 E.R._NP1 ,_, a_AT1 proprietor_NN1 can_VM avoid_VVI the_AT ordinary_JJ liability_NN1 based_VVN on_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 if_CS he_PPHS1 can_VM show_VVI that_CST the_AT water_NN1 had_VHD escaped_VVN without_IW his_APPGE negligence_NN1 ._. 
Default_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 If_CS the_AT damage_NN1 is_VBZ caused_VVN solely_RR by_II the_AT act_NN1 or_CC default_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 himself_PPX1 ,_, he_PPHS1 has_VHZ no_AT remedy_NN1 ._. 
In_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 itself_PPX1 ,_, this_DD1 was_VBDZ noticed_VVN as_II a_AT1 defence_NN1 ._. 
If_CS a_AT1 person_NN1 knows_VVZ that_CST there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 danger_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE mine_NN1 being_VBG flooded_VVN by_II his_APPGE neighbour_NN1 's_GE operations_NN2 on_II adjacent_JJ land_NN1 ,_, and_CC courts_VVZ the_AT danger_NN1 by_II doing_VDG some_DD act_NN1 which_DDQ renders_VVZ the_AT flooding_NN1 probable_JJ ,_, he_PPHS1 can_VM not_XX complain_VVI ._. 
So_RR ,_, too_RR ,_, in_II Ponting_VVG v._II Noakes_NP2 ,_, the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE horse_NN1 reached_VVN over_II the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE boundary_NN1 ,_, nibbled_VVD some_DD poisonous_JJ tree_NN1 there_RL and_CC died_VVD accordingly_RR ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 was_VBDZ held_VVN that_CST the_AT plaintiff_NN1 could_VM recover_VVI nothing_PN1 ,_, for_IF the_AT damage_NN1 was_VBDZ due_II21 to_II22 the_AT horse_NN1 's_GE own_DA intrusion_NN1 and_CC ,_, alternatively_RR ,_, there_EX had_VHD been_VBN no_AT escape_NN1 of_IO the_AT vegetation_NN1 ._. 
Had_VHD it_PPH1 been_VBN grown_VVN there_RL expressly_RR for_IF the_AT purpose_NN1 of_IO alluring_JJ cattle_NN2 to_II their_APPGE destruction_NN1 ,_, the_AT defendant_NN1 would_VM have_VHI been_VBN liable_JJ ,_, not_XX on_II the_AT grounds_NN2 of_IO Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ,_, but_CCB because_CS he_PPHS1 would_VM have_VHI been_VBN in_II the_AT position_NN1 of_IO one_PN1 who_PNQS deliberately_RR sets_VVZ traps_NN2 baited_VVN with_IW flesh_NN1 in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO attract_VVI and_CC catch_VVI dogs_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR otherwise_RR not_XX trespassing_VVG at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
Where_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 is_VBZ contributorily_RR negligent_JJ ,_, the_AT apportionment_NN1 provisions_NN2 of_IO the_AT Law_NN1 Reform_NN1 (_( Contributory_JJ Negligence_NN1 )_) Act_NN1 1945_MC will_VM apply_VVI ._. 
If_CS the_AT injury_NN1 due_II21 to_II22 the_AT escape_NN1 of_IO the_AT noxious_JJ thing_NN1 would_VM not_XX have_VHI occurred_VVN but_II21 for_II22 the_AT unusual_JJ sensitiveness_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE property_NN1 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ some_DD conflict_NN1 of_IO authority_NN1 whether_CSW this_DD1 can_VM be_VBI regarded_VVN as_II default_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ._. 
In_II Eastern_JJ S.A._NP1 Telegraph_NN1 Co_NN1 ._. 
Ltd._JJ v._II Cape_NP1 Town_NP1 Tramways_NP1 Companies_NN2 Ltd._JJ ,_, an_AT1 escape_NN1 of_IO electricity_NN1 stored_VVN and_CC used_VVN by_II the_AT defendants_NN2 in_II working_VVG their_APPGE tramcars_NN2 ,_, interfered_VVN with_IW the_AT sending_NN1 of_IO messages_NN2 by_II the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 through_II their_APPGE submarine_NN1 cable_NN1 ._. 
The_AT plaintiffs_NN2 failed_VVD to_TO recover_VVI as_II no_AT tangible_JJ injury_NN1 had_VHD been_VBN done_VDN to_II their_APPGE property_NN1 no_AT apparatus_NN1 had_VHD been_VBN damaged_VVN ._. 
The_AT defendants_NN2 '_GE operations_NN2 were_VBDR not_XX destructive_JJ of_IO telegraphic_JJ communication_NN1 generally_RR ,_, but_CCB only_RR affected_VVN instruments_NN2 unnecessarily_RR so_RG constructed_JJ as_CSA to_TO be_VBI affected_VVN by_II minute_NNT1 currents_NN2 of_IO the_AT escaping_JJ electricity_NN1 ._. 
With_II31 regard_II32 to_II33 such_DA instruments_NN2 it_PPH1 was_VBDZ said_VVN ,_, '_" A_ZZ1 man_NN1 can_VM not_XX increase_VVI the_AT liabilities_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE neighbour_NN1 by_II applying_VVG his_APPGE own_DA property_NN1 to_II special_JJ uses_NN2 ,_, whether_CSW for_IF business_NN1 or_CC pleasure_NN1 ._. 
'_GE However_RR ,_, in_II Hoare_NP1 Co._NP1 v._II McAlpine_NP1 ,_, where_CS vibrations_NN2 from_II pile-driving_NN1 caused_VVD structural_JJ damage_NN1 to_II a_AT1 large_JJ hotel_NN1 on_II adjoining_JJ land_NN1 ,_, Astbury_NP1 J._NP1 held_VVD it_PPH1 to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 bad_JJ plea_NN1 that_CST the_AT vibrations_NN2 had_VHD this_DD1 effect_NN1 only_RR because_CS the_AT hotel_NN1 was_VBDZ so_RG old_JJ as_CSA to_TO be_VBI abnormally_RR unstable_JJ ;_; but_CCB he_PPHS1 found_VVD also_RR that_CST the_AT evidence_NN1 did_VDD not_XX establish_VVI that_CST it_PPH1 was_VBDZ in_II such_DA a_AT1 condition_NN1 ._. 
Thus_RR the_AT question_NN1 remains_VVZ an_AT1 open_JJ one_PN1 ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 can_VM hardly_RR be_VBI said_VVN that_CST the_AT hotel_NN1 proprietor_NN1 had_VHD put_VVN his_APPGE property_NN1 to_II any_DD special_JJ or_CC unusually_RR sensitive_JJ use_NN1 ._. 
REMOTENESS_NN1 OF_IO DAMAGE_NN1 The_AT defendant_NN1 under_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI liable_JJ ad_RR21 infinitum_RR22 and_CC in_II Blackburn_NP1 J._NP1 's_GE formulation_NN1 of_IO the_AT rule_NN1 he_PPHS1 '_VBZ is_VBZ prima_RR21 facie_RR22 answerable_JJ for_IF all_DB the_AT damage_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ the_AT natural_JJ consequence_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE escape_NN1 ._. 
'_GE The_AT Privy_JJ Council_NN1 in_II The_AT Wagon_NN1 Mound_NN1 (_( No._NN1 1_MC1 )_) stated_VVD that_CST their_APPGE Lordships_NN2 had_VHD not_XX found_VVN it_PPH1 necessary_JJ to_TO consider_VVI the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 remoteness_NN1 of_IO damage_NN1 and_CC it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN suggested_VVN that_CST the_AT inference_NN1 is_VBZ that_DD1 causation_NN1 ,_, not_XX foreseeability_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ the_AT test_NN1 under_II the_AT rule_NN1 ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ no_AT very_RG compelling_JJ reason_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, why_RRQ foreseeability_NN1 should_VM not_XX be_VBI utilised_VVN as_II the_AT test_NN1 of_IO remoteness_NN1 in_II cases_NN2 where_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ irrelevant_JJ to_II the_AT initial_JJ determination_NN1 of_IO liability_NN1 :_: '_GE granted_VVD that_CST an_AT1 escape_NN1 takes_VVZ place_NN1 ,_, albeit_CS unforeseeably_RR ,_, what_DDQ would_VM a_AT1 reasonable_JJ man_NN1 regard_NN1 as_II the_AT foreseeable_JJ consequences_NN2 of_IO such_DA an_AT1 escape_NN1 ?_? 
'_" It_PPH1 will_VM also_RR be_VBI recollected_VVN that_CST so_RG many_DA2 qualifications_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN placed_VVN upon_II the_AT decision_NN1 in_II The_AT Wagon_NN1 Mound_NN1 (_( No._NN1 1_MC1 )_) that_CST the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO foreseeability_NN1 is_VBZ now_RT applied_VVN in_II a_AT1 very_RG broad_JJ and_CC liberal_JJ manner_NN1 and_CC there_EX is_VBZ unlikely_JJ to_TO be_VBI much_RR practical_JJ difference_NN1 between_II an_AT1 inquiry_NN1 whether_CSW a_AT1 consequence_NN1 is_VBZ foreseeable_JJ or_CC natural_JJ ._. 
The_AT natural_JJ or_CC foreseeable_JJ consequences_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 dam_NN1 bursting_VVG are_VBR ,_, inter_RR21 alia_RR22 ,_, the_AT inundation_NN1 of_IO subjacent_JJ land_NN1 ,_, damage_VV0 to_II buildings_NN2 ,_, roads_NN2 and_CC personal_JJ injuries_NN2 ._. 
If_CS the_AT water_NN1 flows_VVZ into_II the_AT shaft_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 adjoining_JJ mine_NN1 ,_, with_IW the_AT result_NN1 that_CST the_AT mine_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI worked_VVN for_IF six_MC months_NNT2 ,_, the_AT mine_NN1 owner_NN1 may_VM recover_VVI damages_NN2 ,_, but_CCB the_AT miners_NN2 who_PNQS lose_VV0 their_APPGE wages_NN2 during_II that_DD1 period_NN1 probably_RR have_VH0 no_AT remedy_NN1 ,_, not_XX because_CS the_AT loss_NN1 is_58 '_GE unnatural_JJ '_GE or_CC '_GE unforeseeable_JJ '_GE but_CCB because_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 loss_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 type_NN1 for_IF which_DDQ the_AT law_NN1 restricts_VVZ recovery_NN1 ._. 
Even_CS21 if_CS22 the_AT escaping_JJ water_NN1 flows_VVZ into_II a_AT1 carbide_NN1 factory_NN1 and_CC thereby_RR generates_VVZ gas_NN1 which_DDQ causes_VVZ a_AT1 tremendous_JJ explosion_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ unlikely_JJ that_RG much_DA1 will_VM be_VBI achieved_VVN by_II seeking_VVG to_TO draw_VVI distinctions_NN2 between_II what_DDQ is_VBZ natural_JJ and_CC foreseeable_JJ ._. 
As_CSA in_II all_DB such_DA cases_NN2 the_AT issue_NN1 is_VBZ finally_RR one_MC1 of_IO legal_JJ policy_NN1 ._. 
MODERN_JJ POSITION_NN1 OF_IO THE_AT RULE_NN1 IN_II RYLANDS_NN2 V._II FLETCHER_NP1 The_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ,_, then_RT ,_, had_VHD its_APPGE origins_NN2 in_II the_AT law_NN1 of_IO private_JJ nuisance_NN1 and_CC has_VHZ often_RR been_VBN treated_VVN as_II a_AT1 particular_JJ species_NN of_IO nuisance_NN1 ._. 
In_II Read_NP1 v._II Lyons_NP1 ,_, for_REX21 instance_REX22 ,_, Lord_NNB Simonds_NP1 remarked_VVD that_DD1 '_VBZ the_AT judgment_NN1 of_IO Blackburn_NP1 J._NP1 in_II the_AT case_NN1 itself_PPX1 shows_VVZ that_CST the_AT law_NN1 of_IO nuisance_NN1 and_CC the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 might_VM in_II most_DAT cases_NN2 be_VBI invoked_VVN indifferently_RR ._. 
'_GE The_AT rule_NN1 of_RR21 course_RR22 has_VHZ in_II many_DA2 senses_NN2 a_AT1 more_RGR restricted_JJ application_NN1 than_CSN nuisance_NN1 ;_; there_EX must_VM be_VBI an_AT1 accumulation_NN1 ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI of_IO a_AT1 substance_NN1 likely_JJ to_TO cause_VVI injury_NN1 if_CS it_PPH1 escapes_VVZ ,_, neither_DD1 of_IO which_DDQ is_VBZ essential_JJ to_II liability_NN1 in_II nuisance_NN1 ._. 
Moreover_RR ,_, the_AT condition_NN1 of_IO non-natural_JJ user_NN1 ,_, though_CS similar_JJ to_II unreasonable_JJ user_NN1 in_II nuisance_NN1 ,_, normally_RR involves_VVZ some_DD degree_NN1 of_IO exceptional_JJ risk_NN1 which_DDQ unreasonable_JJ user_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX ._. 
Nevertheless_RR in_II many_DA2 factual_JJ situations_NN2 ,_, a_AT1 plaintiff_NN1 will_VM succeed_VVI equally_RR well_RR either_RR under_II the_AT rule_NN1 or_CC in_II nuisance_NN1 ._. 
Despite_II the_AT original_JJ relationship_NN1 of_IO the_AT rule_NN1 to_II nuisance_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, the_AT former_DA has_VHZ been_VBN developed_VVN in_II such_DA a_AT1 way_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 provides_VVZ a_AT1 remedy_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ basically_RR quite_RG different_JJ from_II nuisance_NN1 ._. 
Private_JJ nuisance_NN1 remains_VVZ fundamentally_RR a_AT1 remedy_NN1 for_IF the_AT infringement_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 proprietary_JJ interest_NN1 in_II land_NN1 ._. 
There_EX are_VBR ,_, as_CSA we_PPIS2 have_VH0 seen_VVN ,_, different_JJ types_NN2 of_IO nuisance_NN1 and_CC because_II21 of_II22 this_DD1 the_AT burden_NN1 of_IO proof_NN1 placed_VVN on_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 varies_VVZ ._. 
But_CCB the_AT basic_JJ characteristic_JJ common_JJ to_II all_DB types_NN2 of_IO private_JJ nuisance_NN1 is_VBZ that_DD1 of_IO interference_NN1 with_IW the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE proprietary_JJ interest_NN1 in_II land_NN1 ._. 
For_IF this_DD1 reason_NN1 a_AT1 non-occupier_NN1 can_VM not_XX maintain_VVI a_AT1 claim_NN1 in_II nuisance_NN1 and_CC an_AT1 occupier_NN1 's_GE right_JJ to_TO damages_NN2 for_IF his_APPGE personal_JJ injuries_NN2 is_VBZ ancillary_JJ to_II his_APPGE claim_NN1 for_IF compensation_NN1 for_IF damage_NN1 to_II his_APPGE property_NN1 ._. 
In_II contrast_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 now_RT seems_VVZ good_JJ law_NN1 that_CST the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 protects_VVZ all_DB interests_NN2 including_II the_AT interest_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 non-occupier_NN1 ,_, e.g._REX a_AT1 user_NN1 of_IO the_AT highway_NN1 ,_, in_II his_APPGE personal_JJ security_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA one_MC1 writer_NN1 has_VHZ put_VVN it_PPH1 ,_, the_AT rule_NN1 provides_VVZ a_AT1 remedy_NN1 for_IF what_DDQ is_58 '_GE essentially_RR a_AT1 wrong_JJ arising_VVG from_II occupation_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 (_( and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ irrelevant_JJ whether_CSW the_AT person_NN1 suffering_VVG the_AT injury_NN1 occupies_VVZ land_NN1 or_CC not_XX )_) ._. 
'_" This_DD1 serves_VVZ to_TO distinguish_VVI it_PPH1 quite_RG fundamentally_RR from_II nuisance_NN1 ._. 
At_II the_AT same_DA time_NNT1 as_CSA the_AT area_NN1 covered_VVN by_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 has_VHZ been_VBN enlarged_VVN ,_, the_AT usefulness_NN1 of_IO the_AT rule_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN reduced_VVN by_II the_AT unwillingness_NN1 of_IO the_AT courts_NN2 to_TO apply_VVI it_PPH1 in_II circumstances_NN2 where_RRQ the_AT defendant_NN1 could_VM not_XX be_VBI said_VVN to_TO have_VHI been_VBN at_II fault_NN1 ._. 
In_II Dunne_NP1 v._II North_ND1 Western_JJ Gas_NN1 Board_NN1 ,_, Sellers_NP1 L.J._NP1 asserted_VVD that_CST in_II the_AT present_JJ time_NNT1 the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE liability_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 itself_PPX1 '_" could_VM simply_RR have_VHI been_VBN placed_VVN on_II the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE failure_NN1 of_IO duty_NN1 to_TO take_VVI reasonable_JJ care_NN1 ,_, '_GE and_CC it_PPH1 seems_VVZ a_AT1 logical_JJ inference_NN1 from_II this_DD1 and_CC from_II the_AT judgment_NN1 as_II a_AT1 whole_NN1 that_CST the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 considered_VVD the_AT rule_NN1 to_TO have_VHI no_AT useful_JJ function_NN1 in_II modern_JJ times_NNT2 ._. 
Because_II21 of_II22 this_DD1 policy_NN1 ,_, '_GE the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ,_, by_II31 reason_II32 of_II33 its_APPGE many_DA2 limitations_NN2 and_CC exceptions_NN2 ,_, today_RT seldom_RR forms_VVZ the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 successful_JJ claim_NN1 in_II the_AT courts_NN2 '_GE and_CC it_PPH1 seems_VVZ fair_JJ to_TO remark_VVI that_CST the_AT rule_NN1 '_GE has_VHZ hardly_RR been_VBN taken_VVN seriously_RR by_II modern_JJ English_JJ courts_NN2 ._. 
'_GE The_AT most_RGT important_JJ restriction_NN1 on_II any_DD extended_JJ application_NN1 of_IO the_AT rule_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT requirement_NN1 of_IO non-natural_JJ user_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA it_PPH1 is_VBZ now_RT interpreted_VVN ,_, this_DD1 excludes_VVZ from_II the_AT ambit_NN1 of_IO the_AT rule_NN1 those_DD2 accumulations_NN2 which_DDQ in_II the_AT judgment_NN1 of_IO the_AT court_NN1 (_( there_EX being_VBG no_AT objective_JJ test_NN1 )_) do_VD0 not_XX involve_VVI an_AT1 unreasonable_JJ risk_NN1 or_CC an_AT1 extraordinary_JJ use_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 ._. 
Such_DA an_AT1 interpretation_NN1 allows_VVZ the_AT courts_NN2 to_TO hold_VVI that_CST a_AT1 common_JJ activity_NN1 such_II21 as_II22 the_AT collection_NN1 and_CC storage_NN1 of_IO gas_NN1 or_CC water_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX constitute_VVI a_AT1 non-natural_JJ use_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 ,_, even_CS21 though_CS22 the_AT injury_NN1 potential_NN1 of_IO the_AT activity_NN1 is_VBZ high_JJ ._. 
Moreover_RR ,_, in_II determining_VVG what_DDQ is_VBZ extraordinary_JJ or_CC unreasonable_JJ the_AT courts_NN2 can_VM have_VHI regard_NN1 not_XX only_RR to_II the_AT interests_NN2 of_IO the_AT defendant_NN1 but_CCB to_II the_AT public_JJ interest_NN1 as_RR21 well_RR22 ._. 
The_AT benefit_NN1 to_II the_AT public_NN1 accruing_VVG from_II the_AT activity_NN1 in_II question_NN1 was_VBDZ an_AT1 important_JJ element_NN1 in_II both_DB2 Read_VVN v._II Lyons_NP1 and_CC Dunne_NP1 v._II North_ND1 Western_JJ Gas_NN1 Board_NN1 and_CC was_VBDZ again_RT emphasised_VVN in_II British_JJ Celanese_NN Ltd._JJ v._II A.H._NP1 Hunt_NP1 Ltd_JJ ._. 
In_II this_DD1 case_NN1 the_AT defendants_NN2 ,_, who_PNQS were_VBDR manufacturers_NN2 of_IO electronic_JJ components_NN2 ,_, collected_VVN on_II their_APPGE land_NN1 a_AT1 large_JJ number_NN1 of_IO strips_NN2 of_IO metal_NN1 foil_NN1 ,_, light_VV0 enough_RR to_TO be_VBI blown_VVN about_RP in_II the_AT wind_NN1 ._. 
Lawton_NP1 J._NP1 refused_VVD to_TO regard_VVI this_DD1 as_II a_AT1 non-natural_JJ use_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 ._. 
'_GE The_AT manufacturing_NN1 of_IO electrical_JJ and_CC electronic_JJ components_NN2 in_II the_AT year_NNT1 1964_MC ..._... can_VM not_XX be_VBI adjudged_VVN to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 special_JJ use_NN1 nor_CC can_VV0 the_AT bringing_NN1 and_CC storing_VVG on_II the_AT premises_NN2 of_IO metal_NN1 foil_NN1 be_VBI a_AT1 special_JJ use_NN1 in_II itself_PPX1 ...._... 
The_AT metal_NN1 foil_NN1 was_VBDZ there_RL for_IF use_NN1 in_II the_AT manufacture_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 common_JJ type_NN1 which_DDQ at_II all_DB material_JJ times_NNT2 were_VBDR needed_VVN for_IF the_AT general_JJ benefit_NN1 of_IO the_AT community_NN1 ._. 
'_" It_PPH1 would_VM seem_VVI therefore_RR that_DD1 normal_JJ industrial_JJ activities_NN2 properly_RR carried_VVN out_RP may_VM no_RR21 longer_RR22 involve_VVI a_AT1 non-natural_JJ use_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 and_CC many_DA2 of_IO the_AT older_JJR authorities_NN2 on_II this_DD1 point_NN1 will_VM need_VVI reconsidering_VVG ._. 
Moreover_RR ,_, as_II a_AT1 result_NN1 of_IO the_AT defences_NN2 of_IO act_NN1 of_IO God_NP1 ,_, act_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 third_MD party_NN1 and_CC statutory_JJ authority_NN1 ,_, the_AT courts_NN2 must_VM investigate_VVI not_XX only_RR the_AT reasonableness_NN1 of_IO the_AT accumulation_NN1 ,_, but_CCB also_RR the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE responsibility_NN1 for_IF its_APPGE actual_JJ escape_NN1 ._. 
The_AT nature_NN1 and_CC quality_NN1 of_IO the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE conduct_NN1 are_VBR therefore_RR factors_NN2 of_IO great_JJ importance_NN1 ,_, and_CC although_CS the_AT decisional_JJ process_NN1 is_VBZ different_JJ from_II that_DD1 in_II negligence_NN1 ,_, the_AT result_NN1 is_VBZ almost_RR always_RR the_AT same_DA ._. 
We_PPIS2 have_VH0 virtually_RR reached_VVN the_AT position_NN1 where_RRQ a_AT1 defendant_NN1 will_VM not_XX be_VBI considered_VVN liable_JJ when_CS he_PPHS1 would_VM not_XX be_VBI liable_JJ according_II21 to_II22 the_AT ordinary_JJ principles_NN2 of_IO negligence_NN1 ._. 
Unfortunately_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ precisely_RR at_II the_AT point_NN1 when_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 can_VM not_XX succeed_VVI in_II a_AT1 claim_NN1 in_II negligence_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 needs_VVZ to_TO have_VHI recourse_NN1 to_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ._. 
It_PPH1 may_VM well_RR be_VBI contrary_II21 to_II22 modern_JJ judicial_JJ philosophy_NN1 that_CST a_AT1 defendant_NN1 should_VM be_VBI liable_JJ in_II the_AT absence_NN1 of_IO fault_NN1 but_CCB this_DD1 involves_VVZ as_CSA its_APPGE consequence_NN1 that_CST an_AT1 innocent_JJ plaintiff_NN1 should_VM bear_VVI the_AT loss_NN1 ._. 
The_AT injustice_NN1 that_CST may_VM be_VBI caused_VVN by_II this_DD1 was_VBDZ clearly_RR illustrated_VVN by_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO Pearson_NP1 v._II North_ND1 Western_JJ Gas_NN1 Board_NN1 ._. 
The_AT plaintiff_NN1 was_VBDZ seriously_RR and_CC her_APPGE husband_NN1 fatally_RR injured_VVN by_II an_AT1 explosion_NN1 of_IO gas_NN1 which_DDQ also_RR destroyed_VVD their_APPGE home_NN1 ._. 
On_II the_AT facts_NN2 of_IO the_AT case_NN1 ,_, even_RR assuming_VVG the_AT doctrine_NN1 of_IO res_NN2 ipsa_NN1 loquitur_NN1 to_TO operate_VVI in_II31 favour_II32 of_II33 the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ,_, Rees_NP1 J._NP1 was_VBDZ compelled_VVN to_TO hold_VVI that_CST the_AT expert_NN1 evidence_NN1 adduced_VVN by_II the_AT defendants_NN2 rebutted_VVD any_DD prima_JJ21 facie_JJ22 case_NN1 in_II negligence_NN1 ._. 
As_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 was_VBDZ precluded_VVN from_II relying_VVG on_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 by_II the_AT decision_NN1 in_II Dunne_NP1 v._II North_ND1 Western_JJ Gas_NN1 Board_NN1 ,_, the_AT action_NN1 failed_VVD ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ suggested_VVN that_CST the_AT decline_NN1 of_IO the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 in_II recent_JJ times_NNT2 has_VHZ left_VVN the_AT individual_NN1 injured_VVN by_II the_AT activities_NN2 of_IO our_APPGE industrial_JJ society_NN1 without_IW adequate_JJ protection_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN said_VVN on_II high_JJ authority_NN1 that_DD1 '_VBZ ..._... to_TO regard_VVI negligence_NN1 as_II the_AT normal_JJ requirement_NN1 of_IO responsibility_NN1 in_II tort_NN1 ,_, and_CC to_TO look_VVI upon_II strict_JJ liability_NN1 as_CSA anomalous_JJ and_CC unjust_JJ seems_VVZ to_II ..._... mistake_VV0 present_JJ values_NN2 as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 past_JJ history_NN1 ._. 
In_II an_AT1 age_NN1 when_CS insurance_NN1 against_II all_DB forms_NN2 of_IO liability_NN1 is_VBZ commonplace_JJ ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ surely_RR not_XX surprising_JJ or_CC unjust_JJ if_CS law_NN1 makes_VVZ persons_NN2 who_PNQS carry_VV0 on_RP some_DD kinds_NN2 of_IO hazardous_JJ undertakings_NN2 liable_JJ for_IF the_AT harm_NN1 they_PPHS2 do_VD0 ,_, unless_CS they_PPHS2 can_VM excuse_VVI or_CC justify_VVI it_PPH1 on_II some_DD recognisable_JJ ground_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Judicial_JJ ideas_NN2 are_VBR no_AT more_RGR immutable_JJ than_CSN any_DD others_NN2 and_CC it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI that_CST the_AT above_JJ account_NN1 is_VBZ too_RG pessimistic_JJ ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 seems_VVZ likely_JJ that_CST any_DD future_JJ extension_NN1 of_IO strict_JJ liability_NN1 will_VM come_VVI only_RR from_II the_AT legislature_NN1 ._. 
Some_DD instances_NN2 of_IO modern_JJ statutory_JJ liability_NN1 are_VBR considered_VVN in_II a_AT1 later_JJR section_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 chapter_NN1 but_CCB a_AT1 more_RGR generalised_JJ revival_NN1 of_IO the_AT Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 idea_NN1 is_VBZ proposed_VVN in_II two_MC modern_JJ law_NN1 reform_NN1 proposals_NN2 ._. 
The_AT Law_NN1 Commission_NN1 in_II its_APPGE Report_NN1 on_II Civil_JJ Liability_NN1 for_IF Dangerous_JJ Things_NN2 and_CC Activities_NN2 suggested_VVD the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO '_GE special_JJ danger_NN1 '_GE i.e._REX activities_NN2 involving_VVG '_GE a_AT1 more_DAR than_CSN ordinary_JJ risk_NN1 of_IO accidents_NN2 or_CC a_AT1 risk_NN1 of_IO more_DAR than_CSN ordinary_JJ damage_NN1 if_CS accidents_NN2 in_II fact_NN1 result_NN1 '_GE as_II a_AT1 basis_NN1 for_IF future_JJ development_NN1 of_IO the_AT law_NN1 ._. 
The_AT problem_NN1 remains_VVZ ,_, however_RR ,_, of_IO how_RRQ this_DD1 should_VM be_VBI implemented_VVN ._. 
One_MC1 possibility_NN1 would_VM be_VBI a_AT1 statutory_JJ reformulation_NN1 of_IO Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 shorn_VVN of_IO the_AT qualifications_NN2 and_CC defences_NN2 which_DDQ so_RR emasculate_VV0 it_PPH1 now_RT ,_, perhaps_RR on_II the_AT lines_NN2 of_IO the_AT Restatement_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ imposes_VVZ strict_JJ liability_NN1 on_II one_PN1 who_PNQS carries_VVZ on_RP an_AT1 '_GE abnormally_RR dangerous_JJ activity_NN1 ,_, '_GE but_CCB this_DD1 would_VM be_VBI open_JJ to_II varying_VVG judicial_JJ inclinations_NN2 and_CC would_VM give_VVI rise_NN1 to_II considerable_JJ uncertainty_NN1 for_IF a_AT1 very_RG long_JJ period_NN1 of_IO time_NNT1 ._. 
Accordingly_RR the_AT Royal_JJ Commission_NN1 on_II Civil_JJ Liability_NN1 and_CC Compensation_NN1 for_IF Personal_JJ Injury_NN1 recommended_VVD a_AT1 different_JJ approach_NN1 (_( but_CCB only_RR for_IF death_NN1 or_CC personal_JJ injury_NN1 )_) in_II the_AT form_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 parent_NN1 statute_NN1 which_DDQ would_VM empower_VVI a_AT1 Minister_NN1 to_TO '_" list_VVI '_GE dangerous_JJ things_NN2 or_CC activities_NN2 as_CSA giving_VVG rise_NN1 to_II strict_JJ liability_NN1 ._. 
Listing_NN1 would_VM be_VBI by_II statutory_JJ instrument_NN1 made_VVN on_II the_AT advice_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 advisory_JJ committee_NN1 ._. 
There_EX was_VBDZ some_DD disagreement_NN1 in_II the_AT Commission_NN1 as_II21 to_II22 the_AT scope_NN1 of_IO the_AT admissible_JJ defences_NN2 but_CCB there_EX was_VBDZ a_AT1 unanimous_JJ recommendation_NN1 that_CST statutory_JJ authority_NN1 should_VM not_XX ,_, of_IO itself_PPX1 ,_, provide_VV0 immunity_NN1 from_II strict_JJ liability_NN1 ._. 
Such_DA a_AT1 scheme_NN1 would_VM undoubtedly_RR provide_VVI a_AT1 greater_JJR degree_NN1 of_IO certainty_NN1 than_CSN under_II the_AT present_JJ law_NN1 but_CCB would_VM be_VBI open_JJ to_II the_AT objection_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 would_VM leave_VVI without_IW redress_NN1 any_DD persons_NN2 suffering_VVG injury_NN1 from_II an_AT1 unlisted_JJ activity_NN1 ,_, whether_CSW omission_NN1 arose_VVD from_II ignorance_NN1 of_IO the_AT risk_NN1 or_CC commercial_JJ or_CC political_JJ pressures_NN2 on_II the_AT government_NN1 of_IO the_AT day_NNT1 ._. 
The_AT retention_NN1 of_IO the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 as_II a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO '_GE back-up_NN1 '_GE to_II this_DD1 liability_NN1 would_VM go_VVI some_DD way_NN1 to_TO meet_VVI this_DD1 point_NN1 ,_, though_CS the_AT Royal_JJ Commission_NN1 's_GE preference_NN1 ,_, for_IF reasons_NN2 of_IO certainty_NN1 ,_, was_VBDZ for_IF the_AT abolition_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 rule_NN1 ._. 
In_II conclusion_NN1 it_PPH1 should_VM be_VBI noted_VVN that_DD1 power_NN1 already_RR exists_VVZ to_TO utilise_VVI delegated_JJ legislation_NN1 to_TO go_VVI a_AT1 good_JJ deal_NN1 of_IO the_AT way_NN1 along_II the_AT road_NN1 proposed_VVN by_II the_AT Royal_JJ Commission_NN1 ._. 
The_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO the_AT Health_NN1 and_CC Safety_NN1 at_II Work_NN1 etc_RA ._. 
Act_VV0 1974_MC go_VV0 beyond_II the_AT securing_NN1 of_IO safety_NN1 in_II employment_NN1 and_CC include_VV0 :_: (_( 1_MC1 )_) '_GE protecting_JJ persons_NN2 other_II21 than_II22 persons_NN2 at_II work_NN1 against_II risks_NN2 to_II health_NN1 or_CC safety_NN1 arising_VVG out_II21 of_II22 or_CC in_II31 connection_II32 with_II33 the_AT activities_NN2 of_IO persons_NN2 at_II work_NN1 '_GE ;_; (_( 2_MC )_) '_GE controlling_VVG the_AT keeping_NN1 and_CC use_NN1 of_IO explosive_JJ or_CC highly_RR flammable_JJ or_CC otherwise_RR dangerous_JJ substances_NN2 ,_, ..._... '_" ;_; (_( 3_MC )_) '_GE controlling_VVG the_AT emission_NN1 into_II the_AT atmosphere_NN1 of_IO noxious_JJ or_CC offensive_JJ substances_NN2 ..._... 
'_" In_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO promote_VVI these_DD2 purposes_NN2 the_AT Secretary_NN1 of_IO State_NN1 ,_, normally_RR on_II the_AT advice_NN1 of_IO the_AT Health_NN1 and_CC Safety_NN1 Commission_NN1 ,_, has_VHZ power_NN1 to_TO make_VVI '_GE health_NN1 and_CC safety_NN1 regulations_NN2 '_GE which_DDQ will_VM give_VVI rise_NN1 to_II civil_JJ liability_NN1 except_CS in_CS41 so_CS42 far_CS43 as_CS44 they_PPHS2 provide_VV0 otherwise_RR ._. 
To_II the_AT extent_NN1 that_CST these_DD2 regulations_NN2 impose_VV0 absolute_JJ duties_NN2 they_PPHS2 may_VM ,_, accordingly_RR ,_, provide_VVI any_DD persons_NN2 injured_VVD thereby_RR with_IW an_AT1 effective_JJ civil_JJ remedy_NN1 ._. 
FIRE_VV0 Common_JJ law_NN1 Winfield_NP1 has_VHZ traced_VVN the_AT history_NN1 of_IO the_AT earlier_JJR forms_NN2 of_IO action_NN1 available_JJ as_CSA remedies_NN2 for_IF damage_NN1 caused_VVN by_II the_AT spread_NN1 of_IO fire_NN1 ._. 
The_AT usual_JJ remedy_NN1 was_VBDZ the_AT special_JJ action_NN1 of_IO trespass_NN1 on_II the_AT case_NN1 for_IF negligently_RR allowing_VVG one_PN1 's_GE fire_NN1 to_TO escape_VVI in_II contravention_NN1 of_IO the_AT general_JJ custom_NN1 of_IO the_AT realm_NN1 which_DDQ we_PPIS2 first_MD hear_VV0 of_IO in_II Beaulieu_NP1 v._II Finglam_NP1 ._. 
The_AT allegation_NN1 in_II the_AT action_NN1 for_IF fire_NN1 that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 tam_VV0 negligenter_JJR ac_NN1 improvide_NN1 '_GE kept_VVD his_APPGE fire_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 escaped_VVD ,_, '_GE referred_JJ to_II negligence_NN1 in_II its_APPGE older_JJR sense_NN1 one_MC1 mode_NN1 of_IO committing_VVG a_AT1 tort_NN1 ._. 
Centuries_NNT2 later_JJR remedies_NN2 became_VVD available_JJ under_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 in_II nuisance_NN1 and_CC in_II negligence_NN1 ._. 
Although_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ repeatedly_RR said_VVN that_CST at_II common_JJ law_NN1 a_AT1 man_NN1 must_VM keep_VVI his_APPGE fire_NN1 '_GE at_II his_APPGE peril_NN1 ,_, '_GE research_NN1 shows_VVZ that_CST we_PPIS2 can_VM not_XX be_VBI sure_JJ that_CST at_II any_DD period_NN1 in_II the_AT history_NN1 of_IO the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 a_AT1 man_NN1 was_VBDZ absolutely_RR liable_JJ for_IF the_AT escape_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE fire_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 is_VBZ liable_JJ for_IF damage_NN1 done_VDN by_II his_APPGE fire_NN1 if_CS it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN caused_VVN wilfully_RR ,_, or_CC by_II his_APPGE negligence_NN1 ,_, or_CC by_II the_AT escape_NN1 without_IW negligence_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 fire_NN1 which_DDQ has_VHZ been_VBN brought_VVN into_II existence_NN1 by_II some_DD non-natural_JJ user_NN1 of_IO the_AT land_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN pointed_VVN out_RP that_CST the_AT last_MD type_NN1 of_IO liability_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX quite_RG the_AT same_DA as_CSA liability_NN1 under_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 in_CS21 that_CS22 the_AT thing_NN1 accumulated_VVN on_II the_AT land_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX itself_PPX1 escape_VVI ._. 
The_AT criterion_NN1 of_IO liability_NN1 is_VBZ :_: '_" Did_VDD the_AT defendants_NN2 ..._... bring_VV0 to_II their_APPGE land_NN1 things_NN2 likely_JJ to_TO catch_VVI fire_NN1 ,_, and_CC keep_VVI them_PPHO2 there_RL in_II such_DA conditions_NN2 that_CST if_CS they_PPHS2 did_VDD ignite_VVI the_AT fire_NN1 would_VM be_VBI likely_JJ to_TO spread_VVI to_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE land_NN1 ?_? 
'_" With_IW this_DD1 qualification_NN1 liability_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT same_DA as_CSA under_II the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 ._. 
Exactly_RR what_DDQ '_VBZ negligenter_JJR '_" meant_VVN can_VM only_RR be_VBI conjectured_VVN ,_, for_IF the_AT old_JJ authorities_NN2 are_VBR confused_VVN ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 certainly_RR excluded_VVN liability_NN1 where_CS the_AT fire_NN1 spread_NN1 or_CC occurred_VVD (_( a_ZZ1 )_) by_II the_AT act_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 stranger_NN1 over_II whom_PNQO he_PPHS1 had_VHD no_AT control_NN1 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 a_AT1 trespasser_NN1 ,_, and_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) by_II the_AT act_NN1 of_IO nature_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 is_VBZ responsible_JJ for_IF the_AT default_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE servant_NN1 ,_, his_APPGE wife_NN1 ,_, his_APPGE guest_NN1 or_CC one_PN1 entering_VVG his_APPGE house_NN1 with_IW his_APPGE leave_NN1 and_CC for_IF his_APPGE independent_JJ contractor_NN1 ._. 
The_AT second_MD exception_NN1 was_VBDZ established_VVN in_II Tuberville_NP1 v._II Stamp_NN1 where_CS it_PPH1 was_VBDZ held_VVN that_DD1 liability_NN1 extended_VVN to_II a_AT1 fire_NN1 originating_VVG in_II a_AT1 field_NN1 as_RG much_DA1 as_CSA to_II one_MC1 beginning_NN1 in_II a_AT1 house_NN1 ,_, but_CCB if_CS the_AT defendant_NN1 kindles_VVZ it_PPH1 at_II a_AT1 proper_JJ time_NNT1 and_CC place_NN1 and_CC the_AT violence_NN1 of_IO the_AT wind_NN1 carry_VV0 it_PPH1 to_II his_APPGE neighbour_NN1 's_GE land_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 is_VBZ fit_JJ to_TO be_VBI given_VVN in_II evidence_NN1 ._. 
The_AT common_JJ law_NN1 liability_NN1 still_RR remains_VVZ in_II all_DB cases_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR not_XX covered_VVN by_II statutory_JJ provision_NN1 ._. 
Statutes_NN2 (_( 1_MC1 )_) Fires_NN2 beginning_VVG accidentally_RR on_II the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE land_NN1 The_AT common_JJ law_NN1 liability_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN modified_VVN in_II31 respect_II32 of_II33 fires_NN2 spreading_VVG from_II the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE land_NN1 by_II the_AT Fires_NN2 Prevention_NN1 (_( Metropolis_NN1 )_) Act_NN1 1774_MC ,_, which_DDQ provides_VVZ that_CST no_AT action_NN1 shall_VM be_VBI maintainable_JJ against_II anyone_PN1 in_II whose_DDQGE building_NN1 or_CC on_II whose_DDQGE estate_NN1 a_AT1 fire_NN1 shall_VM accidentally_RR begin_VVI ._. 
This_DD1 section_NN1 of_IO the_AT Act_NN1 is_VBZ of_IO general_JJ application_NN1 and_CC is_VBZ not_XX limited_VVN to_II London_NP1 ._. 
In_II Filliter_NN1 v._II Phippard_NP1 the_AT word_NN1 '_GE accidentally_RR '_GE was_VBDZ interpreted_VVN restrictively_RR so_BCL21 as_BCL22 to_TO cover_VVI only_JJ '_GE a_AT1 fire_NN1 produced_VVN by_II mere_JJ chance_NN1 or_CC incapable_JJ of_IO being_VBG traced_VVN to_II any_DD cause_NN1 ._. 
'_GE In_II other_JJ words_NN2 a_AT1 fire_NN1 caused_VVN by_II negligence_NN1 or_CC due_II21 to_II22 a_AT1 nuisance_NN1 will_VM give_VVI rise_NN1 to_II a_AT1 cause_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 ._. 
The_AT immunity_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 defendant_NN1 under_II the_AT statute_NN1 is_VBZ illustrated_VVN by_II Collingwood_NP1 v._II Home_NN1 and_CC Colonial_JJ Stores_NN2 Ltd_JJ ._. 
A_AT1 fire_NN1 broke_VVD out_RP on_II the_AT defendants_NN2 '_GE premises_NN2 and_CC spread_VVN to_II those_DD2 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 originated_VVD in_II the_AT defective_JJ condition_NN1 of_IO the_AT electrical_JJ wiring_NN1 on_II the_AT defendants_NN2 '_GE premises_NN2 ,_, but_CCB as_CSA there_EX was_VBDZ no_AT negligence_NN1 on_II their_APPGE part_NN1 they_PPHS2 were_VBDR held_VVN not_XX liable_JJ ._. 
Nor_CC was_VBDZ the_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 applicable_JJ ,_, for_IF the_AT installation_NN1 of_IO electric_JJ wiring_NN1 ,_, whether_CSW for_IF domestic_JJ or_CC trade_NN1 purposes_NN2 ,_, was_VBDZ a_AT1 reasonable_JJ and_CC ordinary_JJ use_NN1 of_IO premises_NN2 ._. 
Even_CS21 if_CS22 the_AT fire_NN1 is_VBZ lit_VVN intentionally_RR ,_, providing_VVG it_PPH1 is_VBZ lit_VVN properly_RR ,_, there_EX is_VBZ no_AT liability_NN1 if_CS it_PPH1 spreads_VVZ without_IW negligence_NN1 and_CC causes_NN2 damage_VV0 ,_, e.g._REX a_AT1 spark_NN1 jumps_VVZ out_II21 of_II22 an_AT1 ordinary_JJ household_NN1 fire_NN1 and_CC causes_VVZ it_PPH1 to_TO spread_VVI ._. 
It_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI different_JJ ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, if_CS the_AT fire_NN1 were_VBDR made_VVN too_RG large_JJ for_IF the_AT grate_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, the_AT statute_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX confer_VVI protection_NN1 on_II one_PN1 who_PNQS was_VBDZ not_XX at_II fault_NN1 so_RG far_RR as_CSA the_AT origin_NN1 of_IO the_AT fire_NN1 is_VBZ concerned_JJ but_CCB who_PNQS was_VBDZ negligent_JJ in_II letting_VVG it_PPH1 spread_VVD ._. 
In_II Musgrove_NP1 v._II Pandelis_NP1 ,_, the_AT plaintiff_NN1 occupied_VVN rooms_NN2 over_II a_AT1 garage_NN1 and_CC let_VV0 part_NN1 of_IO the_AT garage_NN1 to_II the_AT defendant_NN1 who_PNQS kept_VVD a_AT1 car_NN1 there_RL ._. 
The_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE servant_NN1 ,_, who_PNQS had_VHD little_DA1 skill_NN1 as_II a_AT1 chauffeur_NN1 ,_, started_VVD the_AT engine_NN1 of_IO the_AT car_NN1 and_CC without_IW any_DD fault_NN1 on_II his_APPGE part_NN1 the_AT petrol_NN1 in_II the_AT carburettor_NN1 caught_VVD fire_NN1 ._. 
If_CS he_PPHS1 had_VHD acted_VVN like_II any_DD chauffeur_NN1 of_IO reasonable_JJ competence_NN1 he_PPHS1 could_VM have_VHI stopped_VVN the_AT fire_NN1 by_II turning_VVG off_II the_AT tap_NN1 connecting_VVG the_AT petrol_NN1 tank_NN1 with_IW the_AT carburettor_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 did_VDD not_XX do_VDI so_RR and_CC the_AT fire_NN1 spread_NN1 and_CC damaged_VVD the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE property_NN1 ._. 
The_AT defendant_NN1 was_VBDZ held_VVN liable_JJ ,_, for_IF the_AT fire_NN1 which_DDQ did_VDD the_AT damage_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX that_DD1 which_DDQ broke_VVD out_RP in_II the_AT carburettor_NN1 but_CCB that_DD1 which_DDQ spread_VV0 to_II the_AT car_NN1 and_CC this_DD1 second_NNT1 or_CC continuing_JJ fire_NN1 did_VDD not_XX '_GE accidentally_RR '_GE begin_VV0 ._. 
The_AT same_DA principle_NN1 applies_VVZ where_RRQ the_AT fire_NN1 originated_VVN as_II a_AT1 consequence_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 act_NN1 of_IO nature_NN1 ._. 
In_II Goldman_NP1 v._II Hargrave_NP1 ,_, a_AT1 redgum_NN1 tree_NN1 on_II the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE land_NN1 was_VBDZ struck_VVN by_II lightning_NN1 and_CC caught_VVD fire_NN1 in_II a_AT1 fork_NN1 eighty_MC feet_NN2 above_II ground_NN1 ._. 
The_AT defendant_NN1 had_VHD the_AT tree_NN1 felled_VVN the_AT following_JJ morning_NNT1 ,_, but_CCB then_RT ,_, instead_II21 of_II22 extinguishing_VVG the_AT fire_NN1 with_IW water_NN1 as_CSA he_PPHS1 could_VM have_VHI done_VDN ,_, he_PPHS1 left_VVD it_PPH1 to_TO burn_VVI itself_PPX1 out_RP ._. 
Three_MC days_NNT2 later_RRR a_AT1 wind_NN1 came_VVD up_RP and_CC revived_VVD the_AT fire_NN1 which_DDQ spread_VV0 to_II and_CC damaged_VVD the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE land_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ held_VVN in_II the_AT circumstances_NN2 that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 was_VBDZ negligent_JJ in_II not_XX completely_RR extinguishing_VVG the_AT fire_NN1 and_CC that_CST the_AT Act_NN1 of_IO 1774_MC provided_CS no_AT defence_NN1 ._. 
The_AT burden_NN1 of_IO proving_VVG such_DA negligence_NN1 is_VBZ on_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ;_; it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX for_IF the_AT defendant_NN1 to_TO prove_VVI that_CST the_AT fire_NN1 was_VBDZ accidental_JJ ._. 
Even_CS21 though_CS22 a_AT1 plaintiff_NN1 can_VM not_XX prove_VVI negligence_NN1 ,_, if_CS the_AT fire_NN1 originated_VVN from_II a_AT1 non-natural_JJ user_NN1 of_IO the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE land_NN1 ,_, the_AT Act_NN1 of_IO 1774_MC does_VDZ not_XX provide_VVI a_AT1 defence_NN1 and_CC the_AT defendant_NN1 will_VM be_VBI liable._NNU (_( 2_MC )_) Railway_NN1 engines_NN2 Other_JJ statutes_NN2 deal_VV0 with_IW the_AT escape_NN1 of_IO sparks_NN2 from_II railway_NN1 engines_NN2 ._. 
Where_RRQ ,_, as_CSA is_VBZ commonly_RR the_AT case_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 railway_NN1 is_VBZ constructed_VVN and_CC worked_VVN under_II statutory_JJ powers_NN2 ,_, and_CC there_EX is_VBZ no_AT negligence_NN1 in_II the_AT construction_NN1 or_CC use_NN1 of_IO locomotives_NN2 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ no_AT liability_NN1 for_IF fires_NN2 caused_VVN by_II the_AT escape_NN1 of_IO sparks_NN2 from_II locomotives_NN2 ;_; such_DA was_VBDZ the_AT decision_NN1 in_II Vaughan_NP1 v._II Taff_NP1 Vale_NP1 Ry._NP1 ,_, where_CS the_AT defendants_NN2 had_VHD taken_VVN every_AT1 precaution_NN1 that_CST science_NN1 could_VM suggest_VVI to_TO prevent_VVI injury_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 sort_NN1 ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 was_VBDZ held_VVN that_CST as_CSA Parliament_NN1 had_VHD authorised_VVN the_AT use_NN1 of_IO locomotives_NN2 it_PPH1 was_VBDZ consistent_JJ with_IW policy_NN1 and_CC justice_NN1 that_CST the_AT defendants_NN2 ,_, in_II the_AT absence_NN1 of_IO any_DD negligence_NN1 ,_, should_VM not_XX be_VBI liable_JJ ._. 
But_CCB this_DD1 view_NN1 was_VBDZ rather_RG hard_JJ upon_II farmers_NN2 with_IW crops_NN2 adjacent_II21 to_II22 a_AT1 railway_NN1 line_NN1 and_CC a_AT1 compromise_NN1 was_VBDZ effected_VVN by_II the_AT Railway_NN1 Fires_VVZ Acts_NN2 1905_MC and_CC 1923_MC ,_, which_DDQ cast_VV0 upon_II railways_NN2 a_AT1 liability_NN1 not_XX exceeding_VVG 200_MC ,_, even_CS21 if_CS22 the_AT total_JJ damage_NN1 claimed_VVN and_CC done_VDN is_VBZ much_RR in_II excess_NN1 ,_, for_IF damage_NN1 caused_VVN to_II agricultural_JJ land_NN1 or_CC agricultural_JJ crops_NN2 by_II fire_NN1 arising_VVG from_II the_AT emission_NN1 of_IO sparks_NN2 or_CC cinders_NN2 from_II their_APPGE locomotives_NN2 ,_, although_CS the_AT locomotive_NN1 was_VBDZ used_VVN under_II statutory_JJ powers_NN2 ._. 
Presumably_RR this_DD1 puts_VVZ the_AT liability_NN1 of_IO the_AT railway_NN1 company_NN1 up_RG21 to_RG22 200_MC on_II the_AT same_DA level_NN1 as_CSA that_DD1 fixed_JJ by_II the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 and_CC ,_, on_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, does_VDZ not_XX deprive_VVI it_PPH1 of_IO any_DD of_IO the_AT defences_NN2 pleadable_JJ at_II common_JJ law_NN1 which_DDQ are_VBR discussed_VVN above_RL ,_, e.g._REX default_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ._. 
STRICT_JJ LIABILITY_NN1 UNDER_II MODERN_JJ LEGISLATION_NN1 We_PPIS2 saw_VVD ,_, when_CS considering_VVG nuisance_NN1 ,_, how_RRQ that_DD1 branch_NN1 of_IO the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN supplemented_VVN (_( indeed_RR ,_, in_II some_DD respects_NN2 almost_RR obliterated_VVN )_) by_II detailed_JJ statutory_JJ provisions_NN2 governing_VVG pollution_NN1 of_IO the_AT environment_NN1 ._. 
Most_DAT of_IO this_DD1 legislation_NN1 is_VBZ of_IO a_AT1 '_GE regulatory_JJ '_GE nature_NN1 and_CC does_VDZ not_XX give_VVI rise_NN1 to_II liability_NN1 in_II damages_NN2 ._. 
We_PPIS2 have_VH0 also_RR seen_VVN that_CST for_IF the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO civil_JJ liability_NN1 there_EX have_VH0 been_VBN proposals_NN2 for_IF a_AT1 generalised_JJ statutory_JJ scheme_NN1 for_IF exceptional_JJ risks_NN2 ._. 
The_AT reader_NN1 should_VM be_VBI aware_JJ ,_, however_RR ,_, that_DD1 recent_JJ years_NNT2 have_VH0 seen_VVN the_AT enactment_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 number_NN1 of_IO important_JJ statutory_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO liability_NN1 in_II particular_JJ areas_NN2 of_IO exceptional_JJ risk_NN1 which_DDQ go_VV0 a_AT1 long_JJ way_NN1 towards_II avoiding_VVG the_AT likelihood_NN1 of_IO protracted_JJ litigation_NN1 inherent_JJ in_II the_AT ill-defined_JJ nature_NN1 of_IO the_AT rules_NN2 of_IO strict_JJ liability_NN1 at_II common_JJ law_NN1 ._. 
Full_JJ accounts_NN2 of_IO these_DD2 Acts_NN2 must_VM be_VBI sought_VVN elsewhere_RL but_CCB the_AT following_JJ is_VBZ a_AT1 summary_NN1 of_IO the_AT civil_JJ liability_NN1 aspects_NN2 of_IO some_DD of_IO the_AT more_RGR important_JJ of_IO them_PPHO2 ._. 
Nuclear_JJ incidents_NN2 The_AT major_JJ factors_NN2 requiring_VVG the_AT enactment_NN1 of_IO legislation_NN1 on_II liability_NN1 for_IF nuclear_JJ incidents_NN2 were_VBDR the_AT risk_NN1 of_IO widespread_JJ damage_NN1 ,_, possibly_RR involving_VVG losses_NN2 of_IO millions_NNO2 of_IO pounds_NN2 ,_, from_II a_AT1 single_JJ emission_NN1 of_IO ionising_VVG radiations_NN2 and_CC the_AT possible_JJ injustice_NN1 in_II the_AT Limitation_NN1 Acts_VVZ owing_II21 to_II22 the_AT long_JJ periods_NN2 which_DDQ might_VM elapse_VVI between_II the_AT impact_NN1 of_IO ionising_VVG radiations_NN2 on_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 and_CC his_APPGE suffering_JJ ascertainable_JJ damages_NN2 ._. 
By_II the_AT Nuclear_JJ Installations_NN2 Act_VV0 1965_MC no_AT person_NN1 other_II21 than_II22 the_AT United_NP1 Kingdom_NP1 Atomic_JJ Energy_NN1 Authority_NN1 shall_VM use_VVI any_DD site_NN1 for_IF the_AT operation_NN1 of_IO nuclear_JJ plant_NN1 unless_CS a_AT1 licence_NN1 to_TO do_VDI so_RR has_VHZ been_VBN granted_VVN in_II31 respect_II32 of_II33 that_DD1 site_NN1 by_II the_AT Minister_NN1 of_IO Power_NN1 ._. 
Liability_NN1 arises_VVZ only_RR when_CS there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 nuclear_JJ incident_NN1 which_DDQ occurs_VVZ at_II or_CC in_II31 connection_II32 with_II33 certain_JJ nuclear_JJ installations_NN2 ,_, or_CC in_II the_AT course_NN1 of_IO transport_NN1 of_IO nuclear_JJ substances_NN2 ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 can_VM arise_VVI only_RR in_II connection_NN1 with_IW licensed_JJ nuclear_JJ sites_NN2 ._. 
Section_NN1 7(1)_FO enacts_VVZ :_: '_" It_PPH1 shall_VM be_VBI the_AT duty_NN1 of_IO the_AT licensee_NN1 to_TO secure_VVI that_CST (_( a_ZZ1 )_) no_AT such_DA occurrence_NN1 involving_VVG nuclear_JJ matter_NN1 as_CSA is_VBZ mentioned_VVN in_II subsection_NN1 (_( 2_MC )_) of_IO this_DD1 section_NN1 causes_VVZ injury_NN1 to_II any_DD person_NN1 or_CC damage_NN1 to_II any_DD property_NN1 of_IO any_DD person_NN1 other_II21 than_II22 the_AT licensee_NN1 ,_, being_VBG injury_NN1 or_CC damage_VV0 arising_VVG out_II21 of_II22 or_CC resulting_VVG from_II the_AT radioactive_JJ properties_NN2 ,_, or_CC a_AT1 combination_NN1 of_IO those_DD2 and_CC any_DD toxic_JJ ,_, explosive_JJ or_CC other_JJ hazardous_JJ properties_NN2 ,_, of_IO that_DD1 nuclear_JJ matter_NN1 ;_; and_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) no_AT ionising_JJ radiations_NN2 emitted_VVD during_II the_AT period_NN1 of_IO the_AT licensee_NN1 's_GE responsibility_NN1 (_( i_ZZ1 )_) from_II anything_PN1 caused_VVN or_CC suffered_VVN by_II the_AT licensee_NN1 to_TO be_VBI on_II the_AT site_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ not_XX nuclear_JJ matter_NN1 ;_; or_CC (_( ii_MC )_) from_II any_DD waste_NN1 discharged_VVN (_( in_II whatever_DDQV form_NN1 )_) on_RP or_CC from_II the_AT site_NN1 ,_, cause_VV0 injury_NN1 to_II any_DD person_NN1 or_CC damage_NN1 to_II any_DD property_NN1 of_IO any_DD person_NN1 other_II21 than_II22 the_AT licensee_NN1 ._. 
'_GE The_AT liability_NN1 of_IO the_AT licensee_NN1 under_II section_NN1 7(1)_FO (_( a_ZZ1 )_) ,_, once_RR damage_VV0 within_II the_AT Act_NN1 is_VBZ proved_VVN to_TO have_VHI resulted_VVN ,_, is_VBZ a_AT1 strict_JJ one_PN1 ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ no_AT need_NN1 to_TO prove_VVI negligence_NN1 on_II41 the_II42 part_II43 of_II44 anyone_PN1 ._. 
Any_DD person_NN1 ,_, other_II21 than_II22 the_AT licensee_NN1 ,_, may_VM sue_VVI provided_CS he_PPHS1 can_VM prove_VVI '_GE injury_NN1 '_GE (_( which_DDQ means_NN '_GE personal_JJ injury_NN1 '_GE and_CC includes_VVZ loss_NN1 of_IO life_NN1 )_) or_CC '_GE damage_NN1 to_II any_DD property_NN1 ._. 
'_" There_EX is_VBZ no_AT need_NN1 that_CST the_AT dangerous_JJ matter_NN1 should_VM '_GE escape_NN1 '_GE from_II the_AT site_NN1 on_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 was_VBDZ kept_VVN onto_II other_JJ land_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Act_NN1 creates_VVZ a_AT1 statutory_JJ right_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 for_IF damages_NN2 ,_, where_CS injury_NN1 or_CC damage_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN caused_VVN in_II breach_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 duty_NN1 ._. 
Where_CS liability_NN1 in_II31 respect_II32 of_II33 the_AT same_DA injury_NN1 is_VBZ incurred_VVN by_II two_MC or_CC more_DAR persons_NN2 ,_, both_RR or_CC all_DB of_IO those_DD2 persons_NN2 shall_VM be_VBI treated_VVN as_CSA jointly_RR and_CC severally_RR liable_JJ in_II31 respect_II32 of_II33 that_DD1 injury_NN1 or_CC damage_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 defence_NN1 that_CST the_AT breach_NN1 of_IO duty_NN1 under_II the_AT Act_NN1 is_VBZ attributable_JJ to_II hostile_JJ action_NN1 in_II the_AT course_NN1 of_IO any_DD armed_JJ conflict_NN1 ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 defence_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ attributable_JJ to_II a_AT1 natural_JJ disaster_NN1 ,_, notwithstanding_RR that_CST the_AT disaster_NN1 is_VBZ of_IO such_DA an_AT1 exceptional_JJ character_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 could_VM not_XX reasonably_RR have_VHI been_VBN foreseen_VVN ._. 
The_AT amount_NN1 of_IO compensation_NN1 payable_JJ may_VM be_VBI reduced_VVN by_II31 reason_II32 of_II33 the_AT fault_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ,_, '_GE but_CCB only_RR if_CS ,_, and_CC to_II the_AT extent_NN1 that_CST ,_, the_AT causing_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 injury_NN1 or_CC damage_NN1 is_VBZ attributable_JJ to_II the_AT act_NN1 of_IO &lsqb;_( the_AT plaintiff_NN1 &rsqb;_) committed_VVN with_IW the_AT intention_NN1 of_IO causing_VVG harm_NN1 to_II his_APPGE person_NN1 or_CC property_NN1 or_CC with_IW reckless_JJ disregard_NN1 for_IF the_AT consequences_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE act_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Under_II the_AT Law_NN1 Reform_NN1 (_( Contributory_JJ Negligence_NN1 )_) Act_NN1 1945_MC both_RR the_AT degree_NN1 of_IO blame-worthiness_NN1 and_CC the_AT causative_JJ potency_NN1 of_IO the_AT act_NN1 have_VH0 to_TO be_VBI considered_VVN in_II reducing_VVG damages_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB under_II the_AT 1965_MC Act_NN1 once_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 is_VBZ found_VVN to_TO be_VBI intentional_JJ or_CC reckless_JJ within_II the_AT meaning_NN1 of_IO the_AT subsection_NN1 ,_, the_AT amount_NN1 of_IO the_AT reduction_NN1 rests_VVZ solely_RR on_II the_AT extent_NN1 to_II which_DDQ the_AT harm_NN1 is_VBZ caused_VVN by_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE act_NN1 ._. 
If_CS after_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN harmed_VVN his_APPGE damages_NN2 are_VBR increased_VVN by_II his_APPGE failure_NN1 to_TO have_VHI proper_JJ medical_JJ attention_NN1 ,_, this_DD1 failure_NN1 by_II him_PPHO1 to_TO mitigate_VVI his_APPGE damage_NN1 would_VM have_VHI prevented_VVN him_PPHO1 from_II recovering_VVG that_DD1 portion_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE loss_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ attributable_JJ to_II his_APPGE omission_NN1 ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ doubtful_JJ whether_CSW section_NN1 13(6)_FO of_IO the_AT 1965_MC Act_NN1 has_VHZ a_AT1 different_JJ effect_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 may_VM well_RR be_VBI that_CST in_II an_AT1 extreme_JJ case_NN1 the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE claim_NN1 will_VM fail_VVI completely_RR by_II a_AT1 plea_NN1 of_IO ex_NN1 turpi_NN2 causa_FW non_FU oritur_NN1 actio_NN1 ._. 
Section_NN1 12(1)_FO provides_VVZ that_DD1 '_VBZ where_CS any_DD injury_NN1 or_CC damage_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN caused_VVN in_II breach_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 duty_NN1 imposed_JJ '_GE by_II the_AT Act_NN1 ,_, then_RT subject_II21 to_II22 certain_JJ exceptions_NN2 '_GE no_AT other_JJ liability_NN1 shall_VM be_VBI incurred_VVN by_II any_DD person_NN1 in_II31 respect_II32 of_II33 that_DD1 injury_NN1 or_CC damage_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Section_NN1 15(1)_FO enacts_VVZ that_DD1 '_VBZ notwithstanding_RR anything_PN1 in_II any_DD other_JJ enactment_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 claim_NN1 under_II the_AT Act_NN1 shall_VM not_XX be_VBI entertained_VVN after_II the_AT expiration_NN1 of_IO 30_MC years_NNT2 from_II the_AT date_NN1 of_IO the_AT occurrence_NN1 which_DDQ gives_VVZ rise_NN1 to_II the_AT claim_NN1 ,_, or_CC ,_, where_CS that_DD1 occurrence_NN1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 continuing_JJ one_PN1 ,_, or_CC was_VBDZ one_MC1 of_IO a_AT1 succession_NN1 of_IO occurrences_NN2 all_DB attributable_JJ to_II a_AT1 particular_JJ happening_NN1 '_GE on_II a_AT1 particular_JJ site_NN1 ,_, the_AT date_NN1 of_IO the_AT last_MD event_NN1 in_II the_AT course_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 occurrence_NN1 or_CC succession_NN1 of_IO occurrences_NN2 is_VBZ the_AT relevant_JJ one_PN1 ._. 
The_AT period_NN1 runs_VVZ from_II the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE act_NN1 ,_, not_XX from_II the_AT infliction_NN1 of_IO damage_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, the_AT licensee_NN1 's_GE liability_NN1 is_VBZ in_II fact_NN1 limited_VVN to_II a_AT1 period_NN1 of_IO 10_MC years_NNT2 ._. 
He_PPHS1 is_VBZ required_VVN to_TO make_VVI such_DA provision_NN1 (_( either_RR by_II insurance_NN1 or_CC some_DD other_JJ means_NN )_) as_II the_AT Minister_NN1 may_VM ,_, with_IW the_AT consent_NN1 of_IO the_AT Treasury_NN1 ,_, approve_VV0 for_IF sufficient_JJ funds_NN2 to_TO be_VBI available_JJ ,_, generally_RR up_II21 to_II22 a_AT1 total_NN1 of_IO 20m._NNU to_TO cover_VVI compensation_NN1 during_II this_DD1 period_NN1 ._. 
In_II other_JJ cases_NN2 (_( where_CS the_AT claim_NN1 exceeds_VVZ the_AT statutory_JJ limit_NN1 or_CC after_CS the_AT expiry_NN1 of_IO 10_MC years_NNT2 )_) claims_NN2 are_VBR to_TO be_VBI directed_VVN to_II the_AT Government_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ satisfies_VVZ them_PPHO2 out_II21 of_II22 moneys_NN2 provided_VVN by_II Parliament_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Act_NN1 applies_VVZ in_II certain_JJ circumstances_NN2 to_II occurrences_NN2 outside_II the_AT United_NP1 Kingdom_NP1 ._. 
Oil_NN1 Pollution_NN1 The_AT Merchant_NN1 Shipping_NN1 (_( Oil_NN1 Pollution_NN1 )_) Act_NN1 1971_MC imposes_VVZ civil_JJ liability_NN1 upon_II the_AT owner_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 ship_NN1 carrying_VVG a_AT1 cargo_NN1 of_IO persistent_JJ oil_NN1 in_II bulk_NN1 for_IF escape_NN1 or_CC discharge_NN1 of_IO persistent_JJ oil_NN1 from_II the_AT ship_NN1 ._. 
From_II a_AT1 date_NN1 to_TO be_VBI appointed_VVN the_AT Act_NN1 is_VBZ amended_VVN by_II the_AT Merchant_NN1 Shipping_NN1 Act_NN1 1988_MC and_CC the_AT account_NN1 here_RL is_VBZ of_IO the_AT Act_NN1 as_CSA amended_VVN ._. 
Liability_NN1 extends_VVZ to_TO damage_VVI caused_VVN in_II the_AT United_NP1 Kingdom_NP1 ,_, the_AT cost_NN1 of_IO any_DD measures_NN2 reasonably_RR taken_VVN for_IF the_AT purpose_NN1 of_IO preventing_VVG or_CC reducing_VVG such_DA damage_NN1 ,_, or_CC damage_NN1 caused_VVN by_II any_DD measures_NN2 so_RR taken_VVN ._. 
The_AT Act_NN1 provides_VVZ three_MC defences_NN2 ,_, namely_REX ,_, that_CST the_AT discharge_NN1 or_CC escape_NN1 (_( i_ZZ1 )_) resulted_VVD from_II an_AT1 act_NN1 of_IO war_NN1 ,_, hostilities_NN2 ,_, civil_JJ war_NN1 ,_, insurrection_NN1 or_CC an_AT1 exceptional_JJ ,_, inevitable_JJ and_CC irresistible_JJ natural_JJ phenomenon_NN1 or_CC (_( ii_MC )_) was_VBDZ due_JJ wholly_RR to_II anything_PN1 done_VDN or_CC left_VVD undone_VVN by_II another_DD1 person_NN1 ,_, not_XX being_VBG a_AT1 servant_NN1 or_CC agent_NN1 of_IO the_AT owner_NN1 ,_, with_IW intent_JJ to_TO do_VDI damage_NN1 or_CC (_( iii_MC )_) was_VBDZ due_JJ wholly_RR to_II the_AT negligence_NN1 or_CC wrongful_JJ act_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 government_NN1 or_CC other_JJ authority_NN1 in_II exercising_VVG its_APPGE function_NN1 of_IO maintaining_VVG lights_NN2 or_CC other_JJ navigational_JJ aids_NN2 ._. 
The_AT Act_NN1 provides_VVZ a_AT1 complete_JJ code_NN1 of_IO liability_NN1 of_IO shipowners_NN2 for_IF such_DA occurrence_NN1 and_CC any_DD common_JJ law_NN1 liability_NN1 is_VBZ generally_RR abolished_VVN ._. 
There_EX are_VBR also_RR provisions_NN2 for_IF compulsory_JJ insurance_NN1 and_CC for_IF limitation_NN1 of_IO liability_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Law_NN1 Reform_NN1 (_( Contributory_JJ Negligence_NN1 )_) Act_NN1 1945_MC applies_VVZ to_II proceedings_NN2 under_II the_AT Act_NN1 ._. 
Poisonous_JJ Waste_NN1 The_AT Control_NN1 of_IO Pollution_NN1 Act_NN1 1974_MC provides_VVZ that_CST where_CS any_DD damage_NN1 is_VBZ caused_VVN by_II poisonous_JJ ,_, noxious_JJ or_CC polluting_VVG waste_NN1 which_DDQ has_VHZ been_VBN deposited_VVN on_II land_NN1 ,_, any_DD person_NN1 who_PNQS deposited_VVD it_PPH1 or_CC caused_VVN or_CC knowingly_RR permitted_VVD it_PPH1 to_TO be_VBI deposited_VVN is_VBZ civilly_RR liable_JJ for_IF the_AT damage_NN1 ,_, provided_CS21 that_CS22 his_APPGE act_NN1 constituted_VVD an_AT1 offence_NN1 under_II section_NN1 3(3)_FO or_CC section_NN1 18(2)_FO of_IO the_AT Act_NN1 ._. 
To_TO constitute_VVI an_AT1 offence_NN1 under_II those_DD2 sections_NN2 the_AT waste_NN1 must_VM have_VHI been_VBN deposited_VVN on_II an_AT1 unlicensed_JJ site_NN1 or_CC in_II breach_NN1 of_IO the_AT conditions_NN2 in_II the_AT licence_NN1 ,_, must_VM amount_NN1 to_II an_AT1 '_GE environmental_JJ hazard_NN1 '_GE and_CC must_VM have_VHI been_VBN deposited_VVN in_II such_DA circumstances_NN2 or_CC for_IF such_DA a_AT1 period_NN1 that_CST whoever_PNQV deposited_VVD it_PPH1 there_RL may_VM reasonably_RR be_VBI assumed_VVN to_TO have_VHI abandoned_VVN it_PPH1 there_RL or_CC to_TO have_VHI brought_VVN it_PPH1 there_RL for_IF the_AT purpose_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE being_VBG disposed_VVN as_CSA waste_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Act_NN1 provides_VVZ the_AT following_JJ defences_NN2 to_II a_AT1 civil_JJ action_NN1 :_: (_( i_ZZ1 )_) that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 took_VVD care_NN1 to_TO inform_VVI himself_PPX1 ,_, from_II others_NN2 who_PNQS were_VBDR in_II a_AT1 position_NN1 to_TO provide_VVI the_AT information_NN1 ,_, as_II21 to_II22 whether_CSW the_AT deposit_NN1 would_VM constitute_VVI an_AT1 offence_NN1 and_CC had_VHD no_AT reason_NN1 to_TO suppose_VVI that_CST the_AT information_NN1 given_VVN to_II him_PPHO1 was_VBDZ false_JJ or_CC misleading_JJ ;_; (_( ii_MC )_) that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 acted_VVN under_II instructions_NN2 from_II his_APPGE employer_NN1 and_CC neither_RR knew_VVD nor_CC had_VHD reason_NN1 to_TO suppose_VVI that_CST the_AT deposit_NN1 was_VBDZ unlawful_JJ ;_; (_( iii_MC )_) in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 action_NN1 arising_VVG from_II making_VVG a_AT1 deposit_NN1 otherwise_RR than_CSN in_II31 accordance_II32 with_II33 conditions_NN2 specified_VVN in_II a_AT1 disposal_NN1 licence_NN1 ,_, that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 took_VVD all_DB such_DA steps_NN2 as_CSA were_VBDR reasonably_RR open_JJ to_II him_PPHO1 to_TO ensure_VVI that_CST the_AT conditions_NN2 were_VBDR complied_VVN with_IW ;_; (_( vi_MC )_) the_AT damage_NN1 was_VBDZ wholly_RR due_II21 to_II22 the_AT fault_NN1 of_IO the_AT person_NN1 who_PNQS suffered_VVD it._NNU (_( v_ZZ1 )_) the_AT damage_NN1 was_VBDZ suffered_VVN by_II a_AT1 person_NN1 who_PNQS voluntarily_RR accepted_VVD the_AT risk_NN1 thereof_RR ._. 
The_AT Law_NN1 Reform_NN1 (_( Contributory_JJ Negligence_NN1 )_) Act_NN1 1945_MC applies_VVZ to_II liability_NN1 arising_VVG under_II the_AT Act_NN1 ._. 
ANIMALS_NN2 AT_II common_JJ law_NN1 a_AT1 person_NN1 might_VM be_VBI liable_JJ for_IF damage_NN1 caused_VVN by_II an_AT1 animal_NN1 on_II one_MC1 or_CC more_DAR of_IO three_MC distinct_JJ grounds_NN2 ,_, namely_REX ,_, ordinary_JJ liability_NN1 in_II tort_NN1 ,_, liability_NN1 under_II the_AT scienter_JJR rule_NN1 and_CC liability_NN1 for_IF cattle_NN2 trespass_VV0 ._. 
The_AT law_NN1 was_VBDZ substantially_RR modified_VVN with_II31 regard_II32 to_II33 two_MC of_IO these_DD2 matters_NN2 by_II the_AT Animals_NN2 Act_VV0 1971_MC ;_; but_CCB its_APPGE structure_NN1 is_VBZ still_RR in_II large_JJ measure_NN1 the_AT same_DA and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ convenient_JJ to_TO retain_VVI the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 headings_NN2 for_IF the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO exposition_NN1 ._. 
ORDINARY_JJ LIABILITY_NN1 IN_II TORT_NP1 There_EX are_VBR many_DA2 possible_JJ ways_NN2 in_II which_DDQ one_PN1 may_VM incur_VVI tortious_JJ liability_NN1 through_II the_AT instrumentality_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 animal_NN1 under_II one_PN1 's_GE control_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST the_AT agent_NN1 happens_VVZ to_TO be_VBI animate_JJ rather_II21 than_II22 inanimate_JJ is_VBZ immaterial_JJ ,_, for_CS while_CS the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 ,_, like_II other_JJ legal_JJ systems_NN2 ,_, developed_VVD special_JJ or_CC additional_JJ rules_NN2 of_IO liability_NN1 for_IF animals_NN2 ,_, it_PPH1 did_VDD not_XX deny_VVI the_AT applicability_NN1 to_II them_PPHO2 of_IO the_AT general_JJ law_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 good_JJ example_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 is_VBZ nuisance_NN1 ,_, for_IF you_PPY can_VM be_VBI liable_JJ for_IF nuisance_NN1 through_II the_AT agency_NN1 of_IO your_APPGE animals_NN2 ,_, just_RR as_CSA you_PPY can_VM be_VBI for_IF nuisance_NN1 through_II the_AT agency_NN1 of_IO anything_PN1 else_RR you_PPY own_VV0 ._. 
A_AT1 man_NN1 who_PNQS keeps_VVZ pigs_NN2 too_RR near_II his_APPGE neighbour_NN1 's_GE house_NN1 commits_VVZ a_AT1 nuisance_NN1 ,_, but_CCB that_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX solely_RR because_CS they_PPHS2 are_VBR pigs_NN2 ._. 
He_PPHS1 would_VM commit_VVI a_AT1 nuisance_NN1 just_RR as_RG much_DA1 if_CS what_DDQ he_PPHS1 owned_VVD were_VBDR a_AT1 manure_NN1 heap_NN1 ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ no_AT independent_JJ tort_NN1 called_VVN '_GE nuisance_NN1 by_II pigs_NN2 ,_, '_GE or_CC '_GE nuisance_NN1 by_II animals_NN2 ._. 
'_GE Indeed_RR ,_, nuisance_NN1 may_VM be_VBI the_AT only_JJ appropriate_JJ remedy_NN1 where_CS there_EX is_VBZ no_NN1 '_GE escape_NN1 '_GE and_CC where_CS the_AT animal_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX dangerous_JJ ,_, e.g._REX obstruction_NN1 of_IO the_AT highway_NN1 by_II large_JJ numbers_NN2 of_IO animals_NN2 ,_, or_CC stench_NN1 from_II pigs_NN2 or_CC the_AT crowing_NN1 of_IO cockerels_NN2 ._. 
Generally_RR there_EX is_VBZ no_AT liability_NN1 for_IF the_AT escape_NN1 of_IO noxious_JJ animals_NN2 on_II the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE land_NN1 in_II the_AT ordinary_JJ course_NN1 of_IO nature_NN1 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 rabbits_NN2 ,_, rats_NN2 or_CC birds_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB if_CS a_AT1 landowner_NN1 deliberately_RR collects_VVZ rabbits_NN2 or_CC game_NN1 on_II his_APPGE land_NN1 for_IF any_DD purpose_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 is_VBZ liable_JJ for_IF damage_NN1 by_II them_PPHO2 to_II neighbouring_JJ owners_NN2 if_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ caused_VVN by_II his_58 '_GE extraordinary_JJ ,_, non-natural_JJ or_CC unreasonable_JJ action_NN1 ._. 
'_" Again_RT ,_, if_CS a_AT1 dog-owner_NN1 deliberately_RR sets_VVZ his_APPGE dog_NN1 on_II a_AT1 peaceable_JJ citizen_NN1 he_PPHS1 is_VBZ guilty_JJ of_IO assault_NN1 and_CC battery_NN1 in_II the_AT ordinary_JJ way_NN1 just_RR as_CS21 if_CS22 he_PPHS1 had_VHD flung_VVN a_AT1 stone_NN1 or_CC hit_VVD him_PPHO1 with_IW a_AT1 cudgel_NN1 ._. 
So_RR ,_, too_RR ,_, if_CS a_AT1 man_NN1 teaches_VVZ his_APPGE parrot_NN1 to_TO slander_VVI anyone_PN1 ,_, that_DD1 is_VBZ neither_RR more_RRR nor_CC less_RRR the_AT ordinary_JJ tort_NN1 of_IO defamation_NN1 than_CSN if_CS he_PPHS1 prefers_VVZ to_TO say_VVI it_PPH1 with_IW his_APPGE own_DA tongue_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 with_IW the_AT parrot_NN1 's_GE ._. 
Similarly_RR ,_, ordinary_JJ trespass_NN1 can_VM be_VBI committed_VVN by_II31 means_II32 of_II33 animals_NN2 ._. 
Trespass_VV0 by_II beasts_NN2 so_RG often_RR takes_VVZ the_AT form_NN1 of_IO '_GE cattle_NN2 trespass_NN1 '_GE (_( with_IW which_DDQ we_PPIS2 deal_VV0 separately_RR )_) that_CST one_PN1 does_VDZ not_XX meet_VVI with_IW many_DA2 ordinary_JJ actions_NN2 for_IF trespass_NN1 in_II the_AT reports_NN2 ._. 
However_RRQV an_AT1 indirect_JJ example_NN1 is_VBZ Paul_NP1 v._II Summerhayes_NP1 where_RRQ fox_NN1 hunters_NN2 persisted_VVN in_II riding_VVG over_II the_AT land_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 farmer_NN1 in_II31 spite_II32 of_II33 his_APPGE protests_NN2 and_CC were_VBDR held_VVN to_TO have_VHI committed_VVN trespass_NN1 ._. 
Liability_NN1 for_IF animals_NN2 may_VM also_RR be_VBI based_VVN on_II negligence_NN1 :_: '_GE Quite_RR apart_II21 from_II22 the_AT liability_NN1 imposed_VVN upon_II the_AT owner_NN1 of_IO animals_NN2 or_CC the_AT person_NN1 having_VHG control_NN1 of_IO them_PPHO2 by_II31 reason_II32 of_II33 knowledge_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE propensities_NN2 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ the_AT ordinary_JJ duty_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 person_NN1 to_TO take_VVI care_NN1 either_RR that_CST his_APPGE animal_NN1 or_CC his_APPGE chattel_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX put_VVN to_II such_DA a_AT1 use_NN1 as_CSA is_VBZ likely_JJ to_TO injure_VVI his_APPGE neighbour_NN1 the_AT ordinary_JJ duty_NN1 to_TO take_VVI care_NN1 in_II the_AT cases_NN2 put_VVN upon_II negligence_NN1 ._. 
'_GE In_II an_AT1 action_NN1 based_VVN upon_II the_AT breach_NN1 of_IO such_DA a_AT1 duty_NN1 to_TO take_VVI care_NN1 ,_, the_AT ordinary_JJ rules_NN2 in_II an_AT1 action_NN1 of_IO negligence_NN1 apply_VV0 ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ abundant_JJ authority_NN1 to_TO show_VVI that_CST the_AT action_NN1 for_IF negligence_NN1 for_IF harm_NN1 done_VDN through_II animals_NN2 is_VBZ quite_RG distinct_JJ from_II both_DB2 the_AT cattle_NN2 trespass_VV0 rule_NN1 and_CC the_AT scienter_JJR rule_NN1 ._. 
In_II one_MC1 respect_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 failed_VVD to_TO extend_VVI the_AT principles_NN2 of_IO negligence_NN1 to_II cases_NN2 involving_VVG animals_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ the_AT rule_NN1 for_IF centuries_NNT2 that_CST if_CS animals_NN2 (_( or_CC at_RR21 least_RR22 ,_, ordinary_JJ tame_JJ animals_NN2 )_) strayed_VVD from_II adjacent_JJ land_NN1 on_II21 to_II22 the_AT highway_NN1 neither_RR the_AT owner_NN1 of_IO the_AT animals_NN2 nor_CC the_AT occupier_NN1 of_IO the_AT land_NN1 was_VBDZ liable_JJ for_IF any_DD ensuing_JJ damage_NN1 even_CS21 though_CS22 it_PPH1 could_VM have_VHI been_VBN prevented_VVN by_II controlling_VVG the_AT animal_NN1 or_CC by_II fencing_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 immunity_NN1 has_VHZ now_RT been_VBN abolished_VVN by_II the_AT Animals_NN2 Act_VV0 1971_MC ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 where_CS damage_NN1 is_VBZ caused_VVN by_II animals_NN2 straying_VVG on_II the_AT highway_NN1 the_AT question_NN1 of_IO liability_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO be_VBI decided_VVN in_II31 accordance_II32 with_II33 the_AT ordinary_JJ principles_NN2 of_IO negligence_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ provided_VVN ,_, however_RR ,_, that_CST if_CS a_AT1 person_NN1 has_VHZ a_AT1 right_NN1 to_TO place_VVI animals_NN2 on_II unfenced_JJ land_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 is_VBZ not_XX to_TO be_VBI regarded_VVN as_II in_II breach_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 duty_NN1 of_IO care_NN1 by_II reason_NN1 only_RR of_IO his_APPGE placing_VVG them_PPHO2 there_RL ,_, so_RG long_RR as_CSA the_AT land_NN1 is_VBZ in_II an_AT1 area_NN1 where_CS fencing_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX customary_JJ or_CC is_VBZ common_JJ land_NN1 or_CC a_AT1 town_NN1 or_CC village_NN1 green_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ important_JJ to_TO note_VVI that_CST the_AT Act_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX require_VVI all_DB landowners_NN2 to_TO fence_VVI against_II the_AT highway_NN1 :_: in_II moorland_NN1 areas_NN2 of_IO Wales_NP1 and_CC the_AT north_ND1 of_IO England_NP1 this_DD1 would_VM be_VBI an_AT1 intolerable_JJ burden_NN1 and_CC in_II such_DA areas_NN2 a_AT1 motorist_NN1 must_VM be_VBI expected_VVN to_TO be_VBI on_II the_AT look_NN1 out_RP for_IF straying_VVG livestock_NN ._. 
LIABILITY_NN1 FOR_IF DANGEROUS_JJ ANIMALS_NN2 At_II common_JJ law_NN1 the_AT keeper_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 animal_NN1 was_VBDZ strictly_RR liable_JJ ,_, independently_RR of_IO negligence_NN1 ,_, for_IF damage_NN1 done_VDN by_II the_AT animal_NN1 if_CS (_( a_ZZ1 )_) the_AT animal_NN1 was_VBDZ ferae_NN2 naturae_NN2 (_( i._MC e._ZZ1 belonged_VVD to_II a_AT1 dangerous_JJ species_NN )_) or_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) the_AT animal_NN1 was_VBDZ mansuetae_NN2 naturae_NN2 (_( i.e._REX did_VDD not_XX belong_VVI to_II a_AT1 dangerous_JJ species_NN )_) and_CC he_PPHS1 knew_VVD of_IO its_APPGE vicious_JJ characteristics_NN2 ._. 
These_DD2 forms_NN2 of_IO strict_JJ liability_NN1 have_VH0 been_VBN retained_VVN by_II the_AT Animals_NN2 Act_VV0 1971_MC and_CC ,_, though_CS they_PPHS2 have_VH0 been_VBN subjected_VVN to_II considerable_JJ modification_NN1 ,_, much_DA1 of_IO the_AT old_JJ learning_NN1 will_VM continue_VVI to_TO be_VBI relevant_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ ,_, however_RR ,_, important_JJ to_TO remember_VVI that_CST the_AT only_JJ source_NN1 of_IO the_AT law_NN1 is_VBZ now_RT the_AT words_NN2 of_IO the_AT Act_NN1 and_CC these_DD2 must_VM always_RR prevail_VVI ._. 
Animals_NN2 belonging_VVG to_II a_AT1 dangerous_JJ species_NN Where_CS any_DD damage_NN1 is_VBZ caused_VVN by_II an_AT1 animal_NN1 which_DDQ belongs_VVZ to_II a_AT1 dangerous_JJ species_NN ,_, any_DD person_NN1 who_PNQS is_VBZ a_AT1 keeper_NN1 of_IO the_AT animal_NN1 is_VBZ liable_JJ for_IF the_AT damage_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 dangerous_JJ species_NN is_VBZ defined_VVN as_58 '_GE a_AT1 species_NN (_( a_ZZ1 )_) which_DDQ is_VBZ not_XX commonly_RR domesticated_JJ in_II the_AT British_JJ Islands_NN2 and_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) whose_DDQGE fully_RR grown_VVN animals_NN2 normally_RR have_VH0 such_DA characteristics_NN2 that_CST they_PPHS2 are_VBR likely_JJ ,_, unless_CS restrained_VVN ,_, to_TO cause_VVI severe_JJ damage_NN1 or_CC that_CST any_DD damage_NN1 they_PPHS2 may_VM cause_VVI is_VBZ likely_JJ to_TO be_VBI severe_JJ ._. 
'_GE A_AT1 number_NN1 of_IO points_NN2 arise_VV0 on_II this_DD1 definition_NN1 ._. 
First_MD ,_, it_PPH1 seems_VVZ that_CST as_CSA was_VBDZ the_AT case_NN1 at_II common_JJ law_NN1 in_II classifying_VVG animals_NN2 as_58 '_GE ferae_NN2 naturae_NN2 ,_, '_GE the_AT question_NN1 of_IO whether_CSW an_AT1 animal_NN1 belongs_VVZ to_II a_AT1 dangerous_JJ species_NN is_VBZ one_MC1 of_IO law_NN1 for_IF the_AT court_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ therefore_RR to_TO be_VBI expected_VVN that_CST where_CS an_AT1 animal_NN1 had_VHD been_VBN classified_VVN as_CSA ferae_NN2 naturae_NN2 at_II common_JJ law_NN1 it_PPH1 will_VM be_VBI regarded_VVN as_II belonging_VVG to_II a_AT1 dangerous_JJ species_NN under_II the_AT Act_NN1 (_( e.g._REX a_AT1 lion_NN1 ,_, an_AT1 elephant_NN1 and_CC at_RR21 least_RR22 certain_JJ types_NN2 of_IO monkeys_NN2 )_) ._. 
In_II two_MC respects_NN2 ,_, however_RR ,_, the_AT definition_NN1 is_VBZ wider_JJR than_CSN at_II common_JJ law_NN1 in_CS21 that_CS22 the_AT Act_NN1 (_( a_ZZ1 )_) renders_VVZ a_AT1 species_NN dangerous_JJ if_CS it_PPH1 poses_VVZ a_AT1 threat_NN1 to_II property_NN1 and_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) allows_VVZ for_IF a_AT1 species_NN to_TO be_VBI considered_VVN dangerous_JJ if_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX commonly_RR domesticated_JJ in_II Britain_NP1 ,_, even_CS21 though_CS22 it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI so_RG domesticated_JJ overseas_RL ._. 
Secondly_RR it_PPH1 will_VM remain_VVI the_AT case_NN1 that_CST once_RR a_AT1 species_NN has_VHZ been_VBN judicially_RR classified_VVN as_CSA dangerous_JJ ,_, then_RT ,_, subject_II21 to_II22 the_AT doctrine_NN1 of_IO precedent_NN1 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ no_AT room_NN1 for_IF distinctions_NN2 based_VVN upon_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST some_DD variants_NN2 or_CC individual_JJ animals_NN2 within_II the_AT species_NN may_VM not_XX in_II fact_NN1 be_VBI at_RR21 all_RR22 dangerous_JJ :_: in_II other_JJ words_NN2 ,_, the_AT law_NN1 continues_VVZ to_TO ignore_VVI '_GE the_AT world_NN1 of_IO difference_NN1 between_II the_AT wild_JJ elephant_NN1 in_II the_AT jungle_NN1 and_CC the_AT trained_JJ elephant_NN1 in_II the_AT circus_NN1 ..._... &lsqb;_( which_DDQ &rsqb;_) is_VBZ in_II fact_NN1 no_AT more_RGR dangerous_JJ than_CSN a_AT1 cow_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Thirdly_RR ,_, the_AT Act_NN1 clearly_RR adopts_VVZ as_II the_AT test_NN1 of_IO danger_NN1 either_DD1 '_GE the_AT greater_JJR risk_NN1 of_IO harm_NN1 '_GE or_CC '_GE the_AT risk_NN1 of_IO greater_JJR harm_NN1 '_GE :_: an_AT1 elephant_NN1 may_VM not_XX in_II fact_NN1 be_VBI very_RG likely_JJ to_TO get_VVI out_II21 of_II22 control_NN1 and_CC do_VD0 damage_VVI ,_, but_CCB if_CS it_PPH1 does_VDZ so_RR ,_, its_APPGE bulk_NN1 gives_VVZ it_PPH1 a_AT1 great_JJ capacity_NN1 for_IF harm_NN1 ._. 
For_IF the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO this_DD1 form_NN1 of_IO liability_NN1 a_AT1 person_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 '_GE keeper_NN1 '_GE of_IO the_AT animal_NN1 if_CS '_GE (_( a_ZZ1 )_) he_PPHS1 owns_VVZ the_AT animal_NN1 or_CC has_VHZ it_PPH1 in_II his_APPGE possession_NN1 ;_; or_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) he_PPHS1 is_VBZ the_AT head_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 household_NN1 of_IO which_DDQ a_AT1 member_NN1 under_II the_AT age_NN1 of_IO 16_MC owns_VVZ the_AT animal_NN1 or_CC has_VHZ it_PPH1 in_II his_APPGE possession_NN1 ;_; and_CC if_CS at_II any_DD time_NNT1 an_AT1 animal_NN1 ceases_VVZ to_TO be_VBI owned_VVN by_II or_CC to_TO be_VBI in_II the_AT possession_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 person_NN1 ,_, any_DD person_NN1 who_PNQS immediately_RR before_CS that_DD1 time_NNT1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 keeper_NN1 thereof_RR ..._... continues_VVZ to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 keeper_NN1 of_IO the_AT animal_NN1 until_CS another_DD1 person_NN1 becomes_VVZ a_AT1 keeper_NN1 thereof_RR ..._... 
'_GE Other_JJ animals_NN2 Section_NN1 2(2)_FO provides_VVZ :_: '_" Where_RRQ damage_NN1 is_VBZ caused_VVN by_II an_AT1 animal_NN1 which_DDQ does_VDZ not_XX belong_VVI to_II a_AT1 dangerous_JJ species_NN ,_, a_AT1 keeper_NN1 of_IO the_AT animal_NN1 is_VBZ liable_JJ for_IF the_AT damage_NN1 ..._... if_CS :_: (_( a_ZZ1 )_) the_AT damage_NN1 is_VBZ of_IO a_AT1 kind_NN1 which_DDQ the_AT animal_NN1 ,_, unless_CS restrained_VVN ,_, was_VBDZ likely_JJ to_TO cause_VVI or_CC which_DDQ ,_, if_CS caused_VVN by_II the_AT animal_NN1 ,_, was_VBDZ likely_JJ to_TO be_VBI severe_JJ ;_; and_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) the_AT likelihood_NN1 of_IO the_AT damage_NN1 or_CC of_IO its_APPGE being_VBG severe_JJ was_VBDZ due_II21 to_II22 characteristics_NN2 of_IO the_AT animal_NN1 which_DDQ are_VBR not_XX normally_RR found_VVN in_II animals_NN2 of_IO the_AT same_DA species_NN or_CC are_VBR not_XX normally_RR so_RR found_VVN except_CS at_II particular_JJ times_NNT2 or_CC in_RR21 particular_RR22 circumstances_NN2 ;_; and_CC (_( c_ZZ1 )_) Those_DD2 characteristics_NN2 were_VBDR known_VVN to_II that_DD1 keeper_NN1 or_CC were_VBDR at_II any_DD time_NNT1 known_VVN to_II a_AT1 person_NN1 who_PNQS at_II that_DD1 time_NNT1 had_VHD charge_NN1 of_IO the_AT animal_NN1 as_CSA that_DD1 keeper_NN1 's_GE servant_NN1 or_CC ,_, where_CS that_DD1 keeper_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT head_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 household_NN1 ,_, were_VBDR known_VVN to_II another_DD1 keeper_NN1 of_IO the_AT animal_NN1 who_PNQS is_VBZ a_AT1 member_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 household_NN1 and_CC under_II the_AT age_NN1 of_IO sixteen_MC ._. 
'_GE The_AT purpose_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 somewhat_RR complex_JJ provision_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO preserve_VVI ,_, with_IW some_DD modifications_NN2 ,_, the_AT old_JJ rule_NN1 of_IO scienter_JJR liability_NN1 for_IF tame_JJ animals_NN2 ._. 
Paragraph_NN1 (_( a_ZZ1 )_) follows_VVZ the_AT pattern_NN1 of_IO section_NN1 2(1)_FO in_II adopting_VVG likelihood_NN1 of_IO injury_NN1 or_CC likelihood_NN1 that_CST any_DD injury_NN1 that_CST may_VM be_VBI caused_VVN will_VM be_VBI severe_JJ ._. 
Paragraph_NN1 (_( b_ZZ1 )_) ,_, however_RR ,_, is_VBZ likely_JJ to_TO give_VVI rise_NN1 to_II difficulty_NN1 with_IW its_APPGE concept_NN1 of_IO '_GE abnormal_JJ '_GE characteristics_NN2 ,_, if_CS only_RR because_CS it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI so_RG difficult_JJ to_TO determine_VVI the_AT '_GE normal_JJ '_GE characteristics_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 species_NN ._. 
In_II a_AT1 case_NN1 like_II Barnes_NP1 v._II Lucille_NP1 Ltd._JJ ,_, where_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 was_VBDZ bitten_VVN by_II a_AT1 bitch_NN1 with_IW pups_NN2 ,_, he_PPHS1 would_VM still_RR presumably_RR succeed_VVI ,_, since_CS the_AT '_GE normal_JJ '_GE bitch_NN1 is_VBZ aggressive_JJ only_RR at_II such_DA times_NNT2 ._. 
A_AT1 more_RGR difficult_JJ case_NN1 would_VM be_VBI Fitzgerald_NP1 v._II A._NP1 D._NP1 and_CC E._NP1 D._NP1 Cooke_NP1 Bourne_NP1 Farms_NN2 Ltd._JJ where_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE injuries_NN2 were_VBDR inflicted_VVN by_II the_AT frolics_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 young_JJ filly_NN1 ,_, behaviour_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ perfectly_RR normal_JJ for_IF such_DA animals_NN2 ._. 
However_RR ,_, it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI that_CST the_AT norm_NN1 here_RL is_58 '_GE horse_NN1 '_GE not_XX '_GE filly_NN1 '_GE so_CS21 that_CS22 the_AT frolicsomeness_NN1 would_VM be_VBI a_AT1 characteristic_NN1 found_VVN only_RR at_II a_AT1 particular_JJ time_NNT1 ,_, viz._REX during_II the_AT animal_NN1 's_GE youth_NN1 ._. 
The_AT requirement_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 in_II paragraph_NN1 (_( c_ZZ1 )_) is_VBZ clearly_RR of_IO '_GE actual_JJ '_GE rather_CS21 than_CS22 of_IO constructive_JJ knowledge_NN1 ,_, though_CS a_AT1 person_NN1 who_PNQS ought_VMK to_TO know_VVI of_IO his_APPGE animal_NN1 's_GE vicious_JJ characteristics_NN2 may_VM ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, still_RR be_VBI liable_JJ for_IF negligence_NN1 ._. 
In_II some_DD cases_NN2 the_AT knowledge_NN1 is_VBZ imputed_VVN to_II the_AT keeper_NN1 by_II process_NN1 of_IO law_NN1 under_II paragraph_NN1 (_( c_ZZ1 )_) ,_, but_CCB this_DD1 does_VDZ not_XX mean_VVI that_DD1 knowledge_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 person_NN1 not_XX mentioned_VVN in_II that_DD1 paragraph_NN1 will_VM be_VBI irrelevant_JJ :_: if_CS ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, the_AT wife_NN1 of_IO the_AT keeper_NN1 has_VHZ knowledge_NN1 of_IO the_AT animal_NN1 's_GE propensities_NN2 it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI proper_JJ for_IF the_AT court_NN1 to_TO infer_VVI as_II a_AT1 matter_JJ31 of_JJ32 fact_JJ33 that_CST the_AT keeper_NN1 also_RR knew_VVD of_IO them_PPHO2 ._. 
It_PPH1 should_VM be_VBI noted_VVN with_II31 regard_II32 to_II33 both_DB2 types_NN2 of_IO dangerous_JJ animals_NN2 ,_, that_CST the_AT Act_NN1 ,_, unlike_II the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 ,_, contains_VVZ no_AT requirement_NN1 that_CST the_AT animal_NN1 must_VM escape_VVI from_II control_NN1 ,_, nor_CC that_CST there_EX must_VM be_VBI any_DD sort_NN1 of_IO attack_NN1 ._. 
If_CS ,_, therefore_RR ,_, an_AT1 elephant_NN1 slips_NN2 or_CC stumbles_VVZ or_CC a_AT1 sheep_NN transmits_VVZ a_AT1 virulent_JJ disease_NN1 to_II another_DD1 's_VBZ flock_NN1 ,_, strict_JJ liability_NN1 will_VM apply_VVI ._. 
The_AT definition_NN1 of_IO '_GE keeper_NN1 '_GE for_IF this_DD1 head_NN1 of_IO liability_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT same_DA as_CSA that_DD1 for_IF animals_NN2 belonging_VVG to_II a_AT1 dangerous_JJ species_NN ._. 
Defences_NN2 The_AT Act_NN1 provides_VVZ that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 defence_NN1 to_II an_AT1 action_NN1 brought_VVN under_II section_NN1 2_MC that_CST the_AT damage_NN1 was_VBDZ wholly_RR due_II21 to_II22 the_AT fault_NN1 of_IO the_AT person_NN1 suffering_VVG it_PPH1 or_CC that_CST he_PPHS1 voluntarily_RR assumed_VVD the_AT risk_NN1 thereof_RR (_( though_CS a_AT1 person_NN1 employed_VVN as_II a_AT1 servant_NN1 by_II a_AT1 keeper_NN1 of_IO the_AT animal_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN as_CSA accepting_VVG voluntarily_RR risks_VVZ incidental_JJ to_II his_APPGE employment_NN1 )_) ._. 
Contributory_JJ negligence_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, a_AT1 partial_JJ defence_NN1 ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ special_JJ provision_NN1 for_IF injury_NN1 to_II trespassers_NN2 by_II dangerous_JJ animals_NN2 ._. 
Section_NN1 5(3)_FO provides_VVZ that_CST a_AT1 person_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX liable_JJ under_II section_NN1 2_MC for_IF any_DD damage_NN1 by_II an_AT1 animal_NN1 '_GE kept_VVN on_II any_DD premises_NN2 or_CC structure_NN1 to_II a_AT1 person_NN1 trespassing_VVG there_RL ,_, if_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ proved_VVN either_RR (_( a_ZZ1 )_) that_CST the_AT animal_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX kept_VVN there_RL for_IF the_AT protection_NN1 of_IO persons_NN2 or_CC property_NN1 ;_; or_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) (_( if_CS the_AT animal_NN1 was_VBDZ kept_VVN there_RL for_IF the_AT protection_NN1 of_IO persons_NN2 or_CC property_NN1 )_) that_CST keeping_VVG it_PPH1 there_RL for_IF that_DD1 purpose_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX unreasonable_JJ ._. 
'_" It_PPH1 would_VM seem_VVI unreasonable_JJ to_TO protect_VVI your_APPGE premises_NN2 with_IW a_AT1 lion_NN1 or_CC a_AT1 cobra_NN1 ,_, but_CCB not_XX ,_, perhaps_RR ,_, with_IW a_AT1 fierce_JJ dog_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 subsection_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, affect_VV0 any_DD liability_NN1 for_IF negligence_NN1 which_DDQ the_AT defendant_NN1 may_VM incur_VVI qua_FW occupier_NN1 of_IO the_AT premises_NN2 or_CC keeper_NN1 of_IO the_AT animal_NN1 ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ thought_VVN that_CST the_AT keeping_NN1 of_IO guard_NN1 dogs_NN2 is_VBZ consistent_JJ with_IW the_AT occupier_NN1 's_GE duty_NN1 to_II trespassers_NN2 ,_, provided_CS at_RR21 least_RR22 some_DD warning_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE presence_NN1 is_VBZ given_VVN ._. 
LIABILITY_NN1 FOR_IF STRAYING_VVG LIVESTOCK_NN At_II common_JJ law_NN1 the_AT possessor_NN1 of_IO '_GE cattle_NN2 '_GE was_VBDZ strictly_RR liable_JJ ,_, independently_RR of_IO scienter_JJR ,_, for_IF damage_NN1 done_VDN by_II them_PPHO2 when_CS they_PPHS2 trespassed_VVD on_II the_AT land_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE neighbour_NN1 ._. 
Whatever_DDQV may_VM have_VHI been_VBN the_AT original_JJ rationale_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 form_NN1 of_IO liability_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 was_VBDZ certainly_RR not_XX the_AT same_DA as_CSA that_DD1 of_IO scienter_JJR ,_, for_IF agricultural_JJ animals_NN2 present_VV0 no_AT peculiar_JJ risk_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, the_AT Law_NN1 Commission_NN1 recommend_VV0 the_AT retention_NN1 of_IO strict_JJ liability_NN1 for_IF this_DD1 type_NN1 of_IO harm_NN1 on_II the_AT ground_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 provided_VVD a_AT1 simple_JJ method_NN1 of_IO allocating_VVG liability_NN1 for_IF what_DDQ were_VBDR usually_RR comparatively_RR small_JJ damages_NN2 ._. 
The_AT law_NN1 was_VBDZ ,_, however_RR ,_, in_II31 need_II32 of_II33 considerable_JJ modification_NN1 and_CC the_AT modern_JJ form_NN1 of_IO '_GE cattle_NN2 trespass_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ found_VVN in_II section_NN1 4_MC of_IO the_AT Act_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ provides_VVZ :_: '_GE (_( 1_MC1 )_) Where_RRQ livestock_NN belonging_VVG to_II any_DD person_NN1 strays_VVZ on_II21 to_II22 land_NN1 in_II the_AT ownership_NN1 or_CC occupation_NN1 of_IO another_DD1 and_CC (_( a_ZZ1 )_) damage_NN1 is_VBZ done_VDN by_II the_AT livestock_NN to_II the_AT land_NN1 or_CC to_II any_DD property_NN1 on_II it_PPH1 which_DDQ is_VBZ in_II the_AT ownership_NN1 or_CC possession_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ person_NN1 ;_; or_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) any_DD expenses_NN2 are_VBR reasonably_RR incurred_VVN by_II that_DD1 other_JJ person_NN1 in_II keeping_VVG the_AT livestock_NN while_CS it_PPH1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI restored_VVN to_II the_AT person_NN1 to_II whom_PNQO it_PPH1 belongs_VVZ or_CC while_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ detained_VVN in_II pursuance_NN1 of_IO section_NN1 7_MC of_IO &lsqb;_( the_AT &rsqb;_) Act_NN1 ,_, or_CC in_II ascertaining_VVG to_II whom_PNQO it_PPH1 belongs_VVZ ;_; the_AT person_NN1 to_II whom_PNQO the_AT livestock_NN belongs_VVZ is_VBZ liable_JJ for_IF the_AT damage_NN1 or_CC expenses_NN2 ,_, except_CS as_CSA otherwise_RR provided_VVN by_II &lsqb;_( the_AT &rsqb;_) Act_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Defences_NN2 to_II strict_JJ liability_NN1 for_IF straying_VVG livestock_NN The_AT Act_NN1 provides_VVZ that_CST there_EX is_VBZ no_AT liability_NN1 under_II this_DD1 head_NN1 for_IF damage_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ due_JJ wholly_RR to_II the_AT fault_NN1 of_IO the_AT person_NN1 suffering_VVG it_PPH1 and_CC that_DD1 contributory_JJ negligence_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 partial_JJ defence_NN1 ._. 
In_II this_DD1 context_NN1 default_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 is_VBZ often_RR closely_RR bound_VVN up_RP with_IW fencing_NN1 obligations_NN2 and_CC the_AT Act_NN1 therefore_RR provides_VVZ that_CST damage_VV0 :_: '_" ..._... shall_VM not_XX be_VBI treated_VVN as_CSA due_II21 to_II22 the_AT fault_NN1 of_IO the_AT person_NN1 suffering_VVG it_PPH1 by_II reason_NN1 only_RR that_CST he_PPHS1 could_VM have_VHI prevented_VVN it_PPH1 by_II fencing_NN1 ;_; but_CCB &lsqb;_( the_AT defendant_NN1 &rsqb;_) is_VBZ not_XX liable_JJ ..._... where_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ proved_VVN that_CST the_AT straying_NN1 of_IO the_AT livestock_NN on_II21 to_II22 the_AT land_NN1 would_VM not_XX have_VHI occurred_VVN but_II21 for_II22 a_AT1 breach_NN1 by_II any_DD other_JJ person_NN1 ,_, being_VBG a_AT1 person_NN1 having_VHG an_AT1 interest_NN1 in_II the_AT land_NN1 ,_, of_IO a_AT1 duty_NN1 to_TO fence_VVI ._. 
'_" One_MC1 other_JJ common_JJ law_NN1 defence_NN1 is_VBZ preserved_VVN by_II the_AT Act_NN1 :_: the_AT defendant_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX liable_JJ under_II this_DD1 form_NN1 of_IO liability_NN1 if_CS his_APPGE livestock_NN strayed_VVN on_II21 to_II22 the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE property_NN1 from_II the_AT highway_NN1 and_CC its_APPGE presence_NN1 there_EX was_VBDZ a_AT1 lawful_JJ use_NN1 of_IO the_AT highway_NN1 ._. 
An_AT1 example_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 principle_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT decision_NN1 in_II Tillet_NP1 v._II Ward_NP1 ._. 
X_ZZ1 owned_VVD an_AT1 ox_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, while_CS his_APPGE servants_NN2 were_VBDR driving_VVG it_PPH1 with_IW due_JJ care_NN1 through_II a_AT1 town_NN1 ,_, entered_VVD the_AT shop_NN1 of_IO Y_ZZ1 ,_, an_AT1 ironmonger_NN1 ,_, through_II an_AT1 open_JJ door_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 took_VVD three_MC quarters_NN2 of_IO an_AT1 hour_NNT1 to_TO get_VVI it_PPH1 out_RP and_CC meanwhile_RR it_PPH1 did_VDD some_DD damage_VVI ._. 
X_ZZ1 was_VBDZ held_VVN not_XX liable_JJ to_II Y_ZZ1 ,_, for_IF this_DD1 was_VBDZ one_MC1 of_IO the_AT inevitable_JJ risks_NN2 of_IO driving_JJ cattle_NN2 on_II the_AT streets_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 would_VM have_VHI made_VVN no_AT difference_NN1 if_CS the_AT ironmonger_NN1 's_GE door_NN1 had_VHD been_VBN shut_VVN instead_II21 of_II22 open_JJ ,_, and_CC the_AT ox_NN1 had_VHD pushed_VVN its_APPGE way_NN1 through_RP ,_, or_CC had_VHD gone_VVN through_II a_AT1 plateglass_NN1 window_NN1 ._. 
Detention_NN1 and_CC sale_NN1 of_IO straying_VVG livestock_NN The_AT common_JJ law_NN1 provided_VVD a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO self-help_JJ remedy_NN1 to_II a_AT1 person_NN1 harmed_VVN by_II straying_VVG livestock_NN by_II31 way_II32 of_II33 distress_NN1 damage_NN1 feasant_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Law_NN1 Commission_NN1 concluded_VVD that_CST some_DD remedy_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 type_NN1 should_VM be_VBI retained_VVN but_CCB considered_VVD that_CST the_AT old_JJ remedy_NN1 was_VBDZ so_RR hedged_VVN about_RP with_IW limitations_NN2 (_( in_RR21 particular_RR22 ,_, it_PPH1 provided_VVD no_AT power_NN1 of_IO sale_NN1 )_) and_CC obscurities_NN2 that_CST it_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI better_JJR to_TO create_VVI a_AT1 new_JJ ,_, statutory_JJ right_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ found_VVN in_II section_NN1 7_MC of_IO the_AT Act_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ may_VM be_VBI summarised_VVN as_CSA follows_VVZ :_: (_( i_ZZ1 )_) The_AT right_NN1 of_IO distress_NN1 damage_NN1 feasant_NN1 is_VBZ abolished_VVN in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 animals._NNU (_( ii_MC )_) The_AT occupier_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 may_VM detain_VVI any_DD livestock_NN which_DDQ has_VHZ strayed_VVN on_II21 to_II22 his_APPGE land_NN1 and_CC which_DDQ is_VBZ not_XX then_RT under_II the_AT control_NN1 of_IO any_DD person._NNU (_( iii_MC )_) He_PPHS1 has_VHZ ,_, within_II 48_MC hours_NNT2 of_IO exercising_VVG the_AT right_NN1 of_IO detention_NN1 ,_, to_TO give_VVI notice_NN1 to_II the_AT police_NN2 and_CC ,_, if_CS he_PPHS1 knows_VVZ the_AT person_NN1 to_II whom_PNQO the_AT livestock_NN belongs_VVZ ,_, to_II that_DD1 person._NNU (_( vi_MC )_) The_AT right_NN1 to_TO detain_VVI the_AT livestock_NN ceases_VVZ if_CS :_: (_( a_ZZ1 )_) the_AT detainer_NN1 has_VHZ not_XX complied_VVN with_IW the_AT provisions_NN2 regarding_II notice_NN1 ;_; or_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) the_AT detainer_NN1 is_VBZ tendered_VVN sufficient_JJ money_NN1 to_TO satisfy_VVI any_DD claim_NN1 he_PPHS1 may_VM have_VHI for_IF damage_NN1 and_CC expenses_NN2 in_II31 respect_II32 of_II33 the_AT straying_JJ livestock._NNU or_CC (_( c_ZZ1 )_) he_PPHS1 has_VHZ no_AT such_DA claim_NN1 and_CC the_AT person_NN1 to_II whom_PNQO the_AT livestock_NN belongs_VVZ claims_VVZ it._NNU (_( v_ZZ1 )_) The_AT detainer_NN1 is_VBZ liable_JJ for_IF any_DD damage_NN1 caused_VVN to_II the_AT livestock_NN by_II failure_NN1 to_TO treat_VVI it_PPH1 with_IW reasonable_JJ care_NN1 and_CC supply_VVI it_PPH1 with_IW adequate_JJ food_NN1 and_CC water._NNU (_( vi_MC )_) Where_RRQ the_AT livestock_NN has_VHZ been_VBN rightfully_RR detained_VVN for_IF not_XX less_DAR than_CSN 14_MC days_NNT2 ,_, the_AT person_NN1 detaining_VVG it_PPH1 may_VM sell_VVI it_PPH1 at_II a_AT1 market_NN1 or_CC by_II public_JJ auction_NN1 ,_, unless_CS proceedings_NN2 are_VBR then_RT pending_JJ for_IF the_AT return_NN1 of_IO the_AT livestock_NN or_CC for_IF any_DD claim_NN1 for_IF damages_NN2 done_VDN by_II it_PPH1 or_CC expenses_NN2 incurred_VVN in_II detaining_VVG it._NNU (_( vii_MC )_) Where_RRQ the_AT net_JJ proceeds_NN2 of_IO sale_NN1 exceed_VV0 the_AT amount_NN1 of_IO any_DD claim_VV0 the_AT detainer_NN1 may_VM have_VHI for_IF damages_NN2 and_CC expenses_NN2 ,_, the_AT excess_NN1 is_VBZ recoverable_JJ from_II him_PPHO1 by_II the_AT person_NN1 who_PNQS would_VM be_VBI entitled_VVN to_II the_AT livestock_NN but_II21 for_II22 the_AT sale_NN1 ._. 
REMOTENESS_NN1 OF_IO DAMAGE_NN1 AND_CC STRICT_JJ LIABILITY_NN1 UNDER_II THE_AT ACT_NN1 The_AT Animals_NN2 Act_NN1 contains_VVZ no_AT provisions_NN2 relating_VVG to_II remoteness_NN1 of_IO damage_NN1 ._. 
At_II common_JJ law_NN1 both_DB2 forms_NN2 of_IO scienter_JJR liability_NN1 and_CC cattle_NN2 trespass_NN1 had_VHD close_JJ affinities_NN2 with_IW Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 and_CC were_VBDR probably_RR governed_VVN by_II the_AT remoteness_NN1 principle_NN1 applicable_JJ to_II that_DD1 rule_NN1 was_VBDZ the_AT consequence_NN1 a_AT1 '_GE natural_JJ '_GE one_MC1 ,_, a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO causation_NN1 ._. 
There_EX were_VBDR ,_, however_RR ,_, at_RR21 least_RR22 two_MC exceptions_NN2 to_II the_AT generality_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 principle_NN1 ._. 
First_MD ,_, in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO scienter_JJR liability_NN1 for_IF animals_NN2 mansuetae_NN2 naturae_NN2 ,_, the_AT keeper_NN1 was_VBDZ only_RR liable_JJ if_CS the_AT animal_NN1 caused_VVD some_DD harm_NN1 of_IO the_AT kind_NN1 to_TO be_VBI expected_VVN from_II its_APPGE known_JJ vicious_JJ characteristics_NN2 ;_; secondly_RR ,_, in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO cattle_NN2 trespass_VV0 ,_, there_EX was_VBDZ a_AT1 rule_NN1 that_CST the_AT damage_NN1 had_VHD to_TO be_VBI in_II31 accordance_II32 with_II33 the_AT natural_JJ characteristics_NN2 of_IO the_AT animal_NN1 ._. 
The_AT position_NN1 under_II the_AT Act_NN1 is_VBZ to_II some_DD extent_NN1 speculative_JJ ._. 
The_AT rule_NN1 in_II Rylands_NP2 v._II Fletcher_NP1 was_VBDZ not_XX considered_VVN in_II The_AT Wagon_NN1 Mound_NN1 (_( No._NN1 1_MC1 )_) ,_, though_CS it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN argued_VVN elsewhere_RL in_II this_DD1 book_NN1 that_CST there_EX is_VBZ no_AT reason_NN1 for_IF refusing_VVG to_TO apply_VVI the_AT principles_NN2 of_IO foreseeability_NN1 as_CSA developed_VVN since_CS The_AT Wagon_NN1 Mound_NN1 ._. 
If_CS this_DD1 is_VBZ correct_JJ ,_, those_DD2 principles_NN2 should_VM also_RR be_VBI applicable_JJ to_II the_AT Animals_NN2 Act_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, the_AT form_NN1 of_IO section_NN1 2(2)_FO means_VVZ that_CST with_II31 regard_II32 to_II33 liability_NN1 for_IF animals_NN2 not_XX belonging_VVG to_II a_AT1 dangerous_JJ species_NN the_AT position_NN1 will_VM be_VBI fundamentally_RR the_AT same_DA as_CSA at_II common_JJ law_NN1 ,_, since_CS the_AT damage_NN1 must_VM be_VBI of_IO a_AT1 kind_NN1 made_VVD likely_JJ by_II the_AT characteristics_NN2 known_VVN to_II the_AT keeper_NN1 ._. 
As_II21 for_II22 animals_NN2 belonging_VVG to_II a_AT1 dangerous_JJ species_NN ,_, a_AT1 camel_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN held_VVN to_TO be_VBI such_DA because_CS it_PPH1 may_VM cause_VVI severe_JJ injury_NN1 by_II kicking_VVG and_CC biting_JJ ,_, but_CCB strict_JJ liability_NN1 was_VBDZ imposed_VVN for_IF injuries_NN2 suffered_VVN by_II falling_VVG off_II the_AT camel_NN1 because_II21 of_II22 its_APPGE irregular_JJ gait_NN1 ._. 
Whether_CSW31 or_CSW32 not_CSW33 any_DD special_JJ rule_NN1 survives_VVZ for_IF trespassing_VVG cattle_NN2 is_VBZ not_XX likely_JJ to_TO be_VBI of_IO any_DD importance_NN1 now_CS21 that_CS22 damages_NN2 for_IF personal_JJ injuries_NN2 can_VM not_XX be_VBI recovered_VVN under_II that_DD1 head_NN1 ._. 
PROTECTION_NN1 OF_IO LIVESTOCK_NN AGAINST_II DOGS_NN2 Liability_NN1 for_IF attacks_NN2 on_II livestock_NN Section_NN1 3_MC of_IO the_AT Animals_NN2 Act_NN1 re-enacted_VVD ,_, with_IW some_DD modification_NN1 ,_, the_AT form_NN1 of_IO strict_JJ liability_NN1 formerly_RR found_VVN in_II the_AT Dogs_NN2 Acts_NN2 19061928_MC and_CC provides_VVZ that_CST where_CS a_AT1 dog_NN1 causes_NN2 damage_VV0 by_II killing_NN1 or_CC injuring_VVG livestock_NN ,_, any_DD person_NN1 who_PNQS is_VBZ a_AT1 keeper_NN1 of_IO the_AT dog_NN1 is_VBZ liable_JJ for_IF the_AT damage_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Act_NN1 provides_VVZ the_AT following_JJ defences_NN2 :_: that_CST the_AT damage_NN1 was_VBDZ wholly_RR due_II21 to_II22 the_AT fault_NN1 of_IO the_AT person_NN1 suffering_VVG it_PPH1 ;_; that_CST that_DD1 person_NN1 voluntarily_RR accepted_VVD the_AT risk_NN1 of_IO the_AT damage_NN1 ;_; and_CC that_CST the_AT livestock_NN was_VBDZ killed_VVN or_CC injured_VVN on_II land_NN1 on_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 had_VHD strayed_VVN and_CC either_RR the_AT dog_NN1 belonged_VVD to_II the_AT occupier_NN1 or_CC its_APPGE presence_NN1 on_II the_AT land_NN1 was_VBDZ authorised_VVN by_II the_AT occupier_NN1 ._. 
Contributory_JJ negligence_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 partial_JJ defence_NN1 ._. 
Killing_NN1 or_CC injuring_VVG dogs_NN2 to_TO protect_VVI livestock_NN It_PPH1 may_VM ,_, in_II certain_JJ circumstances_NN2 ,_, be_VBI lawful_JJ for_IF a_AT1 person_NN1 to_TO kill_VVI or_CC injure_VVI an_AT1 animal_NN1 belonging_VVG to_II another_DD1 if_CS this_DD1 is_VBZ necessary_JJ for_IF the_AT protection_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE livestock_NN or_CC crops_NN2 ._. 
The_AT common_JJ law_NN1 rule_NN1 on_II this_DD1 was_VBDZ laid_VVN down_RP by_II the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 in_II Cresswell_NP1 v._II Sirl_NP1 but_CCB this_DD1 rule_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN replaced_VVN ,_, so_RG far_RR as_CSA the_AT protection_NN1 of_IO livestock_NN against_II dogs_NN2 is_VBZ concerned_JJ ,_, by_II section_NN1 9_MC of_IO the_AT Animals_NN2 Act_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 defence_NN1 to_II an_AT1 action_NN1 for_IF killing_VVG or_CC injuring_VVG a_AT1 dog_NN1 to_TO prove_VVI that_CST :_: (_( i_ZZ1 )_) the_AT defendant_NN1 acted_VVN for_IF the_AT protection_NN1 of_IO livestock_NN and_CC was_VBDZ a_AT1 person_NN1 entitled_VVN so_RR to_TO act_VVI ;_; and_CC (_( ii_MC )_) within_II 48_MC hours_NNT2 thereafter_RT notice_VV0 was_VBDZ given_VVN to_II the_AT officer_NN1 in_II31 charge_II32 of_II33 a_AT1 police_NN2 station_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 person_NN1 is_VBZ entitled_VVN to_TO act_VVI for_IF the_AT protection_NN1 of_IO livestock_NN if_CS either_RR the_AT livestock_NN or_CC the_AT land_NN1 on_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ belongs_VVZ to_II him_PPHO1 or_CC to_II any_DD person_NN1 under_II whose_DDQGE express_JJ or_CC implied_JJ authority_NN1 he_PPHS1 is_VBZ acting_VVG ;_; and_CC he_PPHS1 is_VBZ deemed_VVN to_TO be_VBI acting_VVG for_IF their_APPGE protection_NN1 if_CS and_CC only_RR if_CS ,_, either_RR :_: (_( a_ZZ1 )_) the_AT dog_NN1 is_VBZ worrying_JJ or_CC is_VBZ about_RPK to_TO worry_VVI the_AT livestock_NN and_CC there_EX are_VBR not_XX other_JJ reasonable_JJ means_NN of_IO ending_NN1 or_CC preventing_VVG the_AT worrying_JJ ;_; or_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) the_AT dog_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN worrying_JJ livestock_NN ,_, has_VHZ not_XX left_VVN the_AT vicinity_NN1 and_CC is_VBZ not_XX under_II the_AT control_NN1 of_IO any_DD person_NN1 and_CC there_EX are_VBR no_AT practicable_JJ means_NN of_IO ascertaining_VVG to_II whom_PNQO it_PPH1 belongs_VVZ ._. 
INTERFERENCE_NN1 WITH_IW GOODS_NN2 ENGLISH_JJ law_NN1 governing_VVG remedies_NN2 for_IF interference_NN1 with_IW goods_NN2 is_VBZ exceedingly_RR technical_JJ ,_, partly_RR because_II21 of_II22 the_AT long_JJ survival_NN1 and_CC overlap_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 number_NN1 of_IO different_JJ heads_NN2 of_IO liability_NN1 and_CC partly_RR because_CS the_AT law_NN1 ,_, though_CS tortious_JJ in_II form_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ largely_RR proprietary_JJ in_II function_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Torts_NP1 (_( Interference_NN1 with_IW Goods_NN2 )_) Act_NN1 1977_MC has_VHZ made_VVN some_DD simplification_NN1 by_II abolishing_VVG one_MC1 head_NN1 of_IO liability_NN1 but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ only_RR a_AT1 piecemeal_JJ attempt_NN1 to_TO deal_VVI with_IW certain_JJ deficiencies_NN2 in_II the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 and_CC is_VBZ in_II no_AT way_NN1 a_AT1 code_NN1 governing_JJ interference_NN1 with_IW goods_NN2 ._. 
Accordingly_RR ,_, the_AT law_NN1 must_VM still_RR be_VBI sought_VVN mainly_RR in_II the_AT decisions_NN2 of_IO the_AT courts_NN2 and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ impossible_JJ to_TO give_VVI an_AT1 intelligible_JJ account_NN1 of_IO the_AT developed_JJ law_NN1 without_IW a_AT1 brief_JJ historical_JJ sketch_NN1 ._. 
The_AT most_RGT obvious_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO interference_NN1 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 removing_VVG or_CC damaging_VVG the_AT goods_NN2 ,_, were_VBDR covered_VVN in_II early_JJ law_NN1 by_II trespass_NN1 de_NP1 bonis_NN1 asportatis_NN1 ,_, the_AT forerunner_NN1 of_IO the_AT modern_JJ '_GE trespass_NN1 to_II goods_NN2 ._. 
'_GE Trespass_NN1 was_VBDZ (_( and_CC still_RR is_VBZ )_) essentially_RR a_AT1 wrong_JJ to_II possession_NN1 and_CC the_AT defendant_NN1 need_VM not_XX have_VHI asserted_VVN any_DD right_JJ to_TO deal_VVI with_IW the_AT goods_NN2 or_CC indulged_VVN in_II any_DD '_GE appropriation_NN1 '_GE of_IO them_PPHO2 ._. 
Trespass_NN1 was_VBDZ obviously_RR unsuitable_JJ to_TO deal_VVI with_IW the_AT case_NN1 where_CS the_AT owner_NN1 had_VHD voluntarily_RR put_VVN his_APPGE goods_NN2 into_II another_DD1 's_VBZ possession_NN1 and_CC the_AT other_NN1 refused_VVD to_TO re-deliver_VVI them_PPHO2 ,_, but_CCB this_DD1 situation_NN1 was_VBDZ covered_VVN by_II the_AT remedy_NN1 of_IO detinue_NN1 ._. 
In_II neither_DD1 form_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 could_VM the_AT plaintiff_NN1 be_VBI sure_JJ of_IO recovering_VVG his_APPGE goods_NN2 in_II specie_NN1 since_CS the_AT judgment_NN1 in_II trespass_NN1 was_VBDZ for_IF damages_NN2 and_CC in_II detinue_NN1 gave_VVD the_AT defendant_NN1 the_AT option_NN1 of_IO giving_VVG up_RP the_AT goods_NN2 or_CC paying_VVG damages_NN2 but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ unlikely_JJ that_CST this_DD1 was_VBDZ considered_VVN a_AT1 defect_NN1 and_CC it_PPH1 should_VM be_VBI noted_VVN that_CST the_AT remedy_NN1 of_IO specific_JJ restitution_NN1 of_IO chattels_NN2 has_VHZ remained_VVN unusual_JJ right_NN1 up_II21 to_II22 modern_JJ times_NNT2 ._. 
However_RR ,_, detinue_NN1 was_VBDZ open_JJ to_II the_AT very_RG serious_JJ objection_NN1 from_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 could_VM insist_VVI on_II the_AT method_NN1 of_IO trial_NN1 known_VVN as_II wager_NN1 of_IO law_NN1 ,_, i.e._REX getting_VVG compurgators_NN2 to_TO swear_VVI that_CST they_PPHS2 believed_VVD him_PPHO1 to_TO be_VBI oathworthy_JJ ,_, although_CS they_PPHS2 knew_VVD nothing_PN1 of_IO the_AT facts_NN2 of_IO the_AT case_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 was_VBDZ the_AT principal_JJ reason_NN1 for_IF the_AT remarkable_JJ development_NN1 whereby_RRQ detinue_NN1 was_VBDZ all_RR21 but_RR22 wiped_VVN out_RP by_II the_AT encroachment_NN1 of_IO trover_NN1 ._. 
Trover_NP1 began_VVD as_II an_AT1 action_NN1 of_IO trespass_NN1 upon_II the_AT case_NN1 in_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 was_VBDZ alleged_VVN that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 had_VHD converted_VVN the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE goods_NN2 to_II his_APPGE own_DA use_NN1 ._. 
By_II the_AT mid-sixteenth_MD century_NNT1 it_PPH1 had_VHD emerged_VVN as_II a_AT1 distinct_JJ species_NN of_IO case_NN1 involving_VVG four_MC allegations_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ alleged_VVN (_( a_ZZ1 )_) that_CST the_AT plaintiff_NN1 was_VBDZ possessed_VVN of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 ;_; (_( b_ZZ1 )_) that_CST he_PPHS1 accidentally_RR lost_VVD them_PPHO2 ;_; (_( c_ZZ1 )_) that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 found_VVD them_PPHO2 ;_; (_( d_ZZ1 )_) that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 converted_VVD them_PPHO2 to_II his_APPGE own_DA use_NN1 ._. 
The_AT losing_NN1 and_CC finding_NN1 were_VBDR soon_RR treated_VVN as_CSA pure_JJ fictions_NN2 and_CC the_AT defendant_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX allowed_VVN to_TO deny_VVI them_PPHO2 ._. 
The_AT new_JJ remedy_NN1 rapidly_RR encroached_VVN upon_II the_AT spheres_NN2 of_IO trespass_NN1 and_CC replevin_NN1 so_CS21 that_CS22 at_II one_MC1 time_NNT1 it_PPH1 looked_VVD as_CS21 if_CS22 any_DD '_GE asportation_NN1 '_GE or_CC moving_VVG of_IO the_AT property_NN1 might_VM be_VBI regarded_VVN not_XX only_RR as_II a_AT1 trespass_NN1 to_II it_PPH1 but_CCB also_RR conversion_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 ,_, but_CCB this_DD1 very_RG wide_JJ doctrine_NN1 was_VBDZ restricted_VVN to_II a_AT1 principle_NN1 that_CST the_AT dealing_NN1 with_IW the_AT goods_NN2 must_VM amount_NN1 to_II a_AT1 denial_NN1 of_IO the_AT owner_NN1 's_GE title_NN1 ._. 
Trover_NP1 became_VVD a_AT1 complete_JJ alternative_NN1 to_II replevin_NN1 despite_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 could_VM be_VBI argued_VVN that_CST ,_, the_AT goods_NN2 being_VBG regarded_VVN as_II in_II the_AT custody_NN1 of_IO the_AT law_NN1 ,_, the_AT distraint_NN1 did_VDD not_XX amount_NN1 to_II a_AT1 denial_NN1 of_IO the_AT owner_NN1 's_GE title_NN1 ._. 
The_AT difficulty_NN1 in_II extending_VVG trover_NN1 to_II cases_NN2 covered_VVN by_II detinue_NN1 was_VBDZ that_DD1 conversion_NN1 could_VM only_RR be_VBI committed_VVN by_II a_AT1 positive_JJ act_NN1 misfeasance_NN1 as_II31 opposed_II32 to_II33 nonfeasance_NN1 ._. 
Detinue_VV0 lay_VV0 where_RRQ a_AT1 man_NN1 was_VBDZ in_II31 possession_II32 of_II33 another_DD1 's_GE goods_NN2 and_CC refused_VVD to_TO give_VVI them_PPHO2 up_RP but_CCB could_VM it_PPH1 be_VBI said_VVN that_CST such_DA a_AT1 mere_JJ refusal_NN1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 positive_JJ act_NN1 ?_? 
The_AT line_NN1 between_II misfeasance_NN1 and_CC nonfeasance_NN1 is_VBZ apt_JJ to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 fine_JJ one_PN1 and_CC the_AT courts_NN2 after_II some_DD hesitation_NN1 took_VVD advantage_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 and_CC held_VVD mere_JJ refusal_NN1 to_TO redeliver_VVI to_TO be_VBI conversion_NN1 ._. 
Detinue_VV0 ,_, with_IW its_APPGE procedural_JJ disadvantages_NN2 ,_, wilted_VVD considerably_RR under_II this_DD1 treatment_NN1 though_CS it_PPH1 retained_VVD a_AT1 place_NN1 in_II the_AT law_NN1 because_CS inability_NN1 to_TO redeliver_VVI as_II a_AT1 result_NN1 of_IO loss_NN1 or_CC destruction_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 could_VM not_XX amount_NN1 to_II a_AT1 positive_JJ denial_NN1 of_IO title_NN1 for_IF the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO conversion_NN1 ._. 
Nineteenth-century_JJ legislation_NN1 swept_VVD away_RL the_AT fictions_NN2 upon_II which_DDQ trover_NN1 was_VBDZ based_VVN and_CC it_PPH1 became_VVD the_AT modern_JJ action_NN1 for_IF conversion_NN1 ,_, though_CS no_AT change_NN1 was_VBDZ made_VVN in_II the_AT substance_NN1 of_IO the_AT law_NN1 ._. 
The_AT abolition_NN1 of_IO the_AT wager_NN1 of_IO law_NN1 in_II 1833_MC caused_VVD some_DD revival_NN1 in_II detinue_NN1 but_CCB in_II31 view_II32 of_II33 the_AT expansion_NN1 of_IO conversion_NN1 ,_, detinue_VV0 only_RR really_RR remained_VVD necessary_JJ where_CS the_AT defendant_NN1 was_VBDZ unable_JK to_TO redeliver_VVI the_AT goods_NN2 ._. 
The_AT process_NN1 of_IO simplification_NN1 has_VHZ now_RT been_VBN carried_VVN a_AT1 stage_NN1 further_RRR by_II section_NN1 2_MC of_IO the_AT Torts_NP1 (_( Interference_NN1 with_IW Goods_NN2 )_) Act_NN1 1977_MC which_DDQ abolishes_VVZ detinue_NN1 and_CC provides_VVZ that_DD1 conversion_NN1 now_RT also_RR covers_VVZ the_AT only_JJ case_NN1 that_CST was_VBDZ probably_RR formerly_RR the_AT exclusive_JJ province_NN1 of_IO detinue_NN1 i._MC e._ZZ1 inability_NN1 to_TO redeliver_VVI goods_NN2 as_II a_AT1 result_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE loss_NN1 or_CC destruction_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI questioned_VVN whether_CSW this_DD1 change_NN1 achieves_VVZ very_RG much_DA1 of_IO a_AT1 practical_JJ nature_NN1 since_CS (_( a_ZZ1 )_) one_MC1 still_JJ needs_NN2 to_TO look_VVI back_RP at_II the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 of_IO detinue_NN1 to_TO determine_VVI what_DDQ constitutes_VVZ the_AT new_JJ form_NN1 of_IO conversion_NN1 and_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) there_RL still_RR survive_VV0 two_MC torts_NN2 of_IO interference_NN1 with_IW property_NN1 which_DDQ have_VH0 a_AT1 considerable_JJ overlap_NN1 with_IW conversion_NN1 ,_, i.e._REX trespass_VV0 to_II goods_NN2 and_CC replevin_NN1 ._. 
TRESPASS_VV0 TO_II GOODS_NN2 Trespass_VV0 to_II goods_NN2 is_VBZ a_AT1 wrongful_JJ physical_JJ interference_NN1 with_IW them_PPHO2 ._. 
It_PPH1 may_VM take_VVI innumerable_JJ forms_NN2 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 scratching_VVG the_AT panel_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 coach_NN1 ,_, removing_VVG a_AT1 tyre_NN1 from_II a_AT1 car_NN1 ,_, or_CC the_AT car_NN1 itself_PPX1 from_II a_AT1 garage_NN1 ,_, or_CC ,_, in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO animals_NN2 ,_, beating_VVG or_CC killing_VVG them_PPHO2 ._. 
Putting_VVG out_RP poison_NN1 for_IF an_AT1 animal_NN1 to_TO take_VVI is_VBZ probably_RR not_XX trespass_VV0 since_CS the_AT interference_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX direct_RR ,_, a_AT1 requirement_NN1 of_IO all_DB true_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO trespass_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 defendant_NN1 engaging_VVG in_II such_DA conduct_NN1 would_VM ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, be_VBI liable_JJ if_CS injury_NN1 to_II the_AT animals_NN2 ensued_VVN but_CCB his_APPGE liability_NN1 would_VM be_VBI in_II what_DDQ was_VBDZ classified_VVN before_II the_AT abolition_NN1 of_IO the_AT forms_NN2 of_IO action_NN1 as_CSA case_NN1 rather_CS21 than_CS22 trespass_VVI ._. 
Despite_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST trespass_NN1 is_VBZ actionable_JJ per_RR21 se_RR22 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ some_DD authority_NN1 to_II the_AT effect_NN1 that_CST trespass_VV0 to_II goods_NN2 requires_VVZ proof_NN1 of_IO some_DD damage_NN1 or_CC asportation_NN1 but_CCB the_AT general_JJ view_NN1 of_IO textbook_NN1 writers_NN2 is_VBZ to_II the_AT contrary_NN1 and_CC there_EX must_VM be_VBI many_DA2 instances_NN2 where_RRQ ,_, if_CS mere_JJ touching_JJ of_IO objects_NN2 like_II waxworks_NN2 or_CC exhibits_VVZ in_II a_AT1 gallery_NN1 or_CC museum_NN1 be_VBI not_XX trespass_NN1 ,_, their_APPGE possessor_NN1 would_VM be_VBI without_IW remedy_NN1 ._. 
Where_RRQ ,_, however_RR ,_, the_AT touching_JJ is_VBZ not_XX intentional_JJ the_AT law_NN1 may_VM well_RR be_VBI otherwise_RR ._. 
Diplock_NP1 L.J._NP1 has_VHZ said_VVN that_CST actual_JJ damage_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 essential_JJ ingredient_NN1 in_II unintentional_JJ trespass_NN1 to_II the_AT person_NN1 and_CC if_CS this_DD1 is_VBZ so_RR there_EX is_VBZ no_AT reason_NN1 for_IF distinguishing_VVG the_AT case_NN1 of_IO trespass_NN1 to_II goods_NN2 ._. 
Certainly_RR ,_, the_AT considerations_NN2 of_IO policy_NN1 which_DDQ point_VV0 to_II making_VVG intentional_JJ meddling_JJ actionable_JJ even_RR without_IW damage_NN1 have_VH0 no_AT application_NN1 to_II unintended_JJ contacts_NN2 ._. 
Assuming_VVG that_CST some_DD damage_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN caused_VVN ,_, is_VBZ negligence_NN1 necessary_JJ for_IF liability_NN1 for_IF unintentional_JJ trespass_NN1 to_II goods_NN2 ?_? 
The_AT answer_NN1 is_VBZ clearly_RR yes_UH but_CCB the_AT traditional_JJ view_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST once_RR a_AT1 direct_JJ injury_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN proved_VVN the_AT defendant_NN1 bears_VVZ the_AT burden_NN1 of_IO proving_NN1 '_GE inevitable_JJ accident_NN1 '_GE as_II a_AT1 defence_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, since_CS the_AT decision_NN1 in_II Fowler_NP1 v._II Lanning_NP1 ,_, which_DDQ held_VVD that_CST in_II an_AT1 action_NN1 for_IF unintentional_JJ trespass_NN1 to_II the_AT person_NN1 the_AT plaintiff_NN1 must_VM prove_VVI negligence_NN1 on_II41 the_II42 part_II43 of_II44 the_AT defendant_NN1 the_AT same_DA may_VM be_VBI true_JJ of_IO cases_NN2 of_IO trespass_NN1 to_II goods_NN2 ,_, though_CS the_AT matter_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI regarded_VVN as_II finally_RR settled_VVN ._. 
A_AT1 more_RGR extreme_JJ view_NN1 ,_, but_CCB one_PN1 not_XX without_IW its_APPGE attractions_NN2 ,_, is_VBZ that_DD1 in_II the_AT modern_JJ law_NN1 trespass_NN1 to_II goods_NN2 is_VBZ confined_VVN to_II intentional_JJ interference_NN1 and_CC that_DD1 negligent_JJ interference_NN1 is_VBZ remediable_JJ only_RR by_II the_AT tort_NN1 of_IO negligence_NN1 ._. 
Trespass_VV0 ,_, however_RR ,_, obviously_RR remains_VVZ appropriate_JJ where_CS one_PN1 takes_VVZ another_DD1 's_GE goods_NN2 in_II the_AT mistaken_JJ belief_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 is_VBZ entitled_VVN to_TO do_VDI so_RR ,_, for_IF the_AT act_NN1 is_VBZ intentional_JJ towards_II the_AT goods_NN2 ._. 
In_II Wilson_NP1 v._II Lombank_NP1 Ltd._JJ the_AT plaintiff_NN1 had_VHD '_GE purchased_JJ '_GE a_AT1 car_NN1 from_II a_AT1 person_NN1 who_PNQS had_VHD no_AT title_NN1 to_II it_PPH1 and_CC had_VHD sent_VVN it_PPH1 to_II a_AT1 garage_NN1 for_IF repair_NN1 ._. 
The_AT defendant_NN1 ,_, believing_VVG ,_, wrongly_RR ,_, that_CST the_AT car_NN1 was_VBDZ his_PPGE ,_, removed_VVD it_PPH1 from_II the_AT garage_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ held_VVN that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 was_VBDZ liable_JJ in_II trespass_NN1 ._. 
Possession_NN1 essential_JJ As_CSA trespass_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 interference_NN1 with_IW possession_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 follows_VVZ that_CST if_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 were_VBDR not_XX in_II possession_NN1 at_II the_AT date_NN1 of_IO the_AT alleged_JJ meddling_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 can_VM not_XX sue_VVI for_IF trespass_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 may_VM be_VBI able_JK to_TO sue_VVI for_IF conversion_NN1 ,_, but_CCB that_DD1 is_VBZ a_AT1 different_JJ matter_NN1 ._. 
'_GE The_AT distinction_NN1 between_II the_AT actions_NN2 of_IO trespass_NN1 and_CC trover_NN1 is_VBZ well_RR settled_VVN :_: the_AT former_DA is_VBZ founded_VVN on_II possession_NN1 ;_; the_AT latter_DA on_II property_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Alleged_JJ exceptions_NN2 It_PPH1 is_VBZ said_VVN that_CST there_EX are_VBR exceptions_NN2 to_II this_DD1 rule_NN1 and_CC that_CST the_AT following_JJ persons_NN2 can_VM sue_VVI for_IF trespass_NN1 although_CS they_PPHS2 had_VHD not_XX possession_NN1 (_( a_ZZ1 )_) A_ZZ1 trustee_NN1 against_II any_DD third_MD person_NN1 who_PNQS commits_VVZ a_AT1 trespass_NN1 to_TO trust_VVI chattels_NN2 in_II the_AT hands_NN2 of_IO the_AT beneficiary._NNU (_( b_ZZ1 )_) An_AT1 executor_NN1 or_CC administrator_NN1 for_IF trespasses_NN2 committed_VVN to_II goods_NN2 of_IO the_AT deceased_JJ after_II his_APPGE death_NN1 but_CCB before_CS probate_NN1 is_VBZ granted_VVN to_II the_AT executor_NN1 or_CC before_CS the_AT administrator_NN1 takes_VVZ out_RP letters_NN2 of_IO administration._NNU (_( c_ZZ1 )_) The_AT owner_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 franchise_NN1 (_( e.g._REX a_AT1 right_NN1 to_TO take_VVI wreck_NN1 or_CC treasure_NN1 trove_NN1 )_) against_II anyone_PN1 who_PNQS seizes_VVZ the_AT goods_NN2 before_CS he_PPHS1 himself_PPX1 can_VM take_VVI them_PPHO2 ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ questionable_JJ whether_CSW any_DD of_IO these_DD2 exceptions_NN2 is_VBZ genuine_JJ ._. 
The_AT language_NN1 used_VVN in_II the_AT authorities_NN2 relating_VVG to_II the_AT trustee_NN1 is_VBZ none_PN too_RG clear_JJ ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 indicates_VVZ that_CST the_AT trustee_NN1 has_VHZ possession_NN1 of_IO chattels_NN2 in_II the_AT hands_NN2 of_IO the_AT beneficiary_NN1 ,_, and_CC not_XX merely_RR the_AT right_NN1 to_TO possess_VVI them_PPHO2 ._. 
It_PPH1 does_VDZ not_XX follow_VVI from_II this_DD1 that_CST the_AT beneficiary_NN1 himself_PPX1 can_VM not_XX sue_VVI ,_, for_CS if_CS he_PPHS1 holds_VVZ the_AT chattels_NN2 he_PPHS1 seems_VVZ to_TO have_VHI joint_JJ possession_NN1 with_IW the_AT trustee_NN1 ._. 
Again_RT ,_, the_AT executor_NN1 and_CC administrator_NN1 have_VH0 long_RR been_VBN regarded_VVN as_II having_VHG the_AT deceased_NN1 's_GE possession_NN1 continued_VVD in_II them_PPHO2 ;_; when_CS they_PPHS2 assume_VV0 office_NN1 their_APPGE title_NN1 relates_VVZ back_RP to_II his_APPGE death_NN1 ._. 
They_PPHS2 have_VH0 not_XX merely_RR the_AT right_NN1 to_TO possess_VVI :_: they_PPHS2 are_VBR in_II possession_NN1 ._. 
Similarly_RR ,_, in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO the_AT franchise_NN1 ,_, possession_NN1 is_VBZ deemed_VVN to_TO be_VBI with_IW the_AT owner_NN1 of_IO the_AT franchise_NN1 ._. 
In_II Bailiffs_NN2 of_IO Dunwich_NP1 v._II Sterry_NP1 ,_, the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 had_VHD the_AT right_NN1 to_II wrecks_NN2 at_II Dunwich_NP1 and_CC the_AT defendant_NN1 took_VVD a_AT1 cask_NN1 of_IO whisky_NN1 from_II a_AT1 wreck_NN1 before_II the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 could_VM get_VVI it_PPH1 ._. 
The_AT defendant_NN1 was_VBDZ held_VVN liable_JJ for_IF trespass_NN1 ,_, for_IF '_GE the_AT right_NN1 to_II the_AT possession_NN1 draws_VVZ after_CS it_PPH1 a_AT1 constructive_JJ possession_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ is_VBZ sufficient_JJ to_TO support_VVI the_AT action_NN1 ._. 
'_GE In_II a_AT1 simple_JJ bailment_NN1 determinable_JJ at_II will_VM the_AT bailor_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX lose_VVI possession_NN1 and_CC may_VM sue_VVI any_DD wrongdoer_NN1 other_II21 than_II22 his_APPGE bailee_NN1 in_II trespass_NN1 ,_, though_CS the_AT bailee_NN1 also_RR probably_RR has_VHZ sufficient_JJ possession_NN1 to_TO bring_VVI trespass_NN1 ._. 
CONVERSION_NN1 Conversion_NN1 at_II common_JJ law_NN1 may_VM be_VBI committed_VVN in_II so_RG many_DA2 different_JJ ways_NN2 that_CST any_DD comprehensive_JJ definition_NN1 is_VBZ probably_RR impossible_JJ but_CCB the_AT connecting_JJ thread_NN1 running_VVG through_II the_AT cases_NN2 seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI that_CST the_AT wrong_NN1 is_VBZ committed_VVN by_II a_AT1 dealing_NN1 with_IW the_AT goods_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 person_NN1 which_DDQ constitutes_VVZ an_AT1 unjustifiable_JJ denial_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE rights_NN2 in_II them_PPHO2 or_CC the_AT assertion_NN1 of_IO rights_NN2 inconsistent_JJ therewith_RR ._. 
Thus_RR it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI committed_VVN by_II wrongfully_RR taking_VVG possession_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 ,_, by_II wrongfully_RR disposing_VVG of_IO them_PPHO2 ,_, by_II wrongfully_RR destroying_VVG them_PPHO2 or_CC simply_RR by_II wrongfully_RR refusing_VVG to_TO give_VVI them_PPHO2 up_RP when_CS demanded_VVN ,_, for_IF in_II all_DB these_DD2 cases_NN2 can_VM be_VBI traced_VVN conduct_NN1 by_II the_AT defendant_NN1 which_DDQ amounts_VVZ to_II a_AT1 denial_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE rights_NN2 or_CC the_AT assertion_NN1 of_IO inconsistent_JJ rights_NN2 ._. 
But_CCB if_CS this_DD1 element_NN1 was_VBDZ lacking_VVG there_EX was_VBDZ no_AT conversion_NN1 ._. 
Thus_RR if_CS a_AT1 bailee_NN1 negligently_RR allows_VVZ goods_NN2 in_II his_APPGE charge_NN1 to_TO be_VBI destroyed_VVN the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE loss_NN1 is_VBZ just_RR the_AT same_DA as_CSA if_CS the_AT bailee_NN1 had_VHD wrongfully_RR sold_VVN them_PPHO2 to_II a_AT1 third_MD party_NN1 but_CCB there_EX is_VBZ no_AT conversion_NN1 because_CS the_AT negligent_JJ (_( as_II31 opposed_II32 to_II33 deliberate_JJ )_) destruction_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX an_AT1 assertion_NN1 of_IO any_DD rights_NN2 in_II the_AT goods_NN2 ._. 
Such_DA conduct_NN1 is_VBZ now_RT conversion_NN1 by_II statute_NN1 but_CCB this_DD1 is_VBZ merely_RR for_IF the_AT draftsman_NN1 's_GE terminological_JJ convenience_NN1 and_CC has_VHZ no_AT effect_NN1 on_II the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO conversion_NN1 at_II common_JJ law_NN1 :_: for_IF this_DD1 reason_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI kept_VVN separate_JJ in_II our_APPGE analysis_NN1 ._. 
What_DDQ constitutes_VVZ conversion_NN1 at_II common_JJ law_NN1 (_( 1_MC1 )_) Taking_VVG possession_NN1 Taking_VVG possession_NN1 of_IO another_DD1 's_GE goods_NN2 will_VM normally_RR be_VBI conversion_NN1 as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 being_VBG trespass_NN1 ,_, but_CCB there_EX will_VM be_VBI no_AT conversion_NN1 where_CS the_AT interference_NN1 is_VBZ merely_RR temporary_JJ and_CC is_VBZ unaccompanied_JJ by_II any_DD intention_NN1 to_TO exercise_VVI any_DD rights_NN2 over_II the_AT goods_NN2 ._. 
If_CS I_PPIS1 snatch_VV0 your_APPGE hat_NN1 from_II your_APPGE head_NN1 with_IW intent_JJ to_TO steal_VVI it_PPH1 ,_, that_DD1 is_VBZ conversion_NN1 as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 trespass_NN1 ,_, but_CCB if_CS I_PPIS1 throw_VV0 it_PPH1 at_II another_DD1 person_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 is_VBZ trespass_NN1 only_RR ,_, for_CS I_PPIS1 am_VBM not_XX questioning_VVG your_APPGE title_NN1 to_II it_PPH1 ._. 
So_RR ,_, too_RR ,_, if_CS you_PPY shift_VV0 my_APPGE bicycle_NN1 from_II a_AT1 public_JJ stand_NN1 in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO get_VVI at_II your_APPGE own_DA ,_, and_CC forget_VVI to_TO replace_VVI mine_PPGE so_CS21 that_CS22 it_PPH1 is_VBZ stolen_VVN by_II someone_PN1 ,_, that_DD1 may_VM be_VBI trespass_NN1 ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX conversion_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX ,_, however_RR ,_, necessary_JJ that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 should_VM assert_VVI rights_NN2 of_IO ownership_NN1 over_II the_AT goods_NN2 :_: taking_VVG for_IF the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO acquiring_VVG a_AT1 lien_NN1 or_CC of_IO temporary_JJ use_NN1 have_VH0 been_VBN held_VVN to_TO be_VBI conversion._NNU (_( a_ZZ1 )_) Mere_JJ reception_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 ._. 
Where_CS A_ZZ1 ,_, without_IW lawful_JJ authority_NN1 ,_, transfers_VVZ B_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 goods_NN2 to_II C_NP1 ,_, the_AT mere_JJ voluntary_JJ reception_NN1 of_IO them_PPHO2 by_II C_ZZ1 is_VBZ in_RR21 general_RR22 conversion_NN1 ,_, however_RGQV innocent_JJ C_ZZ1 may_VM be_VBI ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ abundantly_RR supported_VVN by_II decisions_NN2 with_II31 respect_II32 to_II33 receipt_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 by_II a_AT1 buyer_NN1 and_CC a_AT1 receipt_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 cheque_NN1 by_II a_AT1 banker_NN1 ,_, and_CC there_EX are_VBR judicial_JJ dicta_NN2 that_CST appear_VV0 to_TO regard_VVI the_AT rule_NN1 as_II of_IO general_JJ application_NN1 ._. 
Some_DD qualifications_NN2 of_IO it_PPH1 where_CS the_AT defendant_NN1 acts_VVZ bona_JJ21 fide_JJ22 are_VBR discussed_VVN below_RL ._. 
A_AT1 more_RGR questionable_JJ exception_NN1 appeared_VVD in_II Spackman_NP1 v._II Foster_NP1 to_II the_AT effect_NN1 that_CST receipt_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 by_II31 way_II32 of_II33 pledge_NN1 did_VDD not_XX amount_NN1 to_II conversion_NN1 even_CS21 though_CS22 the_AT same_DA receipt_NN1 by_II31 way_II32 of_II33 purchase_NN1 would_VM have_VHI ._. 
Whether_CSW31 or_CSW32 not_CSW33 this_DD1 decision_NN1 was_VBDZ ever_RR good_JJ law_NN1 it_PPH1 was_VBDZ reversed_VVN by_II the_AT Torts_NP1 (_( Interference_NN1 with_IW Goods_NN2 )_) Act_NN1 1977._MC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) '_GE Involuntary_JJ bailee_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Involuntary_JJ reception_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 is_VBZ not_XX conversion_NN1 ._. 
Such_DA is_VBZ the_AT case_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 innocent_JJ person_NN1 into_II whose_DDQGE pocket_NN1 a_AT1 thief_NN1 ,_, in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO escape_VVI detection_NN1 ,_, inserts_VVZ a_AT1 purse_NN1 which_DDQ he_PPHS1 has_VHZ stolen_VVN from_II a_AT1 third_MD person_NN1 ._. 
Even_RR where_CS the_AT receiver_NN1 knows_VVZ that_CST the_AT thing_NN1 belongs_VVZ to_II someone_PN1 else_RR ,_, he_PPHS1 incurs_VVZ no_AT liability_NN1 by_II having_VHG it_PPH1 thrust_VVN upon_II him_PPHO1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ no_AT new_JJ thing_NN1 for_IF pushing_VVG tradesmen_NN2 occasionally_RR to_TO send_VVI unsolicited_JJ goods_NN2 to_II persons_NN2 in_II the_AT hope_NN1 of_IO making_VVG a_AT1 sale_NN1 ,_, but_CCB this_DD1 practice_NN1 developed_VVN to_II the_AT extent_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 came_VVD to_TO be_VBI regarded_VVN in_II some_DD quarters_NN2 as_II a_AT1 serious_JJ social_JJ problem_NN1 ._. 
By_II virtue_NN1 of_IO the_AT Unsolicited_JJ Goods_NN2 and_CC Services_NN2 Act_VV0 1971_MC the_AT recipient_NN1 of_IO unsolicited_JJ goods_NN2 is_VBZ entitled_VVN in_II certain_JJ circumstances_NN2 to_TO treat_VVI them_PPHO2 as_CSA unconditional_JJ gifts_NN2 after_II six_MC months_NNT2 from_II receipt_NN1 ,_, or_CC 30_MC days_NNT2 from_II notice_NN1 to_II the_AT sender_NN1 ,_, so_RG long_RR as_CSA the_AT sender_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX in_II the_AT meantime_NNT1 take_VV0 possession_NN1 of_IO them_PPHO2 and_CC the_AT recipient_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX unreasonably_RR refuse_VVI to_TO permit_VVI him_PPHO1 to_TO do_VDI so_RR ._. 
Subject_II21 to_II22 this_DD1 ,_, the_AT law_NN1 relating_VVG to_II an_AT1 involuntary_JJ bailee_NN1 may_VM be_VBI stated_VVN as_CSA follows_VVZ 1_MC1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 can_VM not_XX ,_, without_IW his_APPGE knowledge_NN1 or_CC consent_NN1 ,_, be_VBI made_VVN a_AT1 bailee_NN1 in_II the_AT strict_JJ sense_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 term_NN1 ._. 
In_II Lethbridge_NP1 v._II Phillips_NP1 ,_, L_ZZ1 ,_, a_AT1 celebrated_JJ miniature_JJ painter_NN1 ,_, lent_VVD a_AT1 miniature_JJ to_II B_NP1 who_PNQS wished_VVD to_TO show_VVI it_PPH1 to_II the_AT defendant_NN1 ._. 
B_NP1 sent_VVD it_PPH1 to_II the_AT defendant_NN1 without_IW any_DD previous_JJ knowledge_NN1 or_CC consent_NN1 on_II the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE part_NN1 ._. 
The_AT miniature_NN1 was_VBDZ much_RR damaged_VVN by_II being_VBG placed_VVN near_II a_AT1 large_JJ stove_NN1 in_II the_AT house_NN1 of_IO the_AT defendant_NN1 who_PNQS was_VBDZ nevertheless_RR held_VVN not_XX liable_JJ to_II L._NP1 2_MC ._. 
Mere_JJ negligence_NN1 on_II41 the_II42 part_II43 of_II44 the_AT recipient_NN1 with_II31 respect_II32 to_II33 the_AT safe_JJ custody_NN1 of_IO the_AT thing_NN1 will_VM not_XX make_VVI him_PPHO1 liable_JJ ._. 
So_RR ,_, in_II Howard_NP1 v._II Harris_NP1 ,_, where_CS a_AT1 playwright_NN1 sent_VVD the_AT manuscript_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 play_NN1 to_II a_AT1 theatrical_JJ producer_NN1 who_PNQS had_VHD never_RR asked_VVN for_IF it_PPH1 and_CC who_PNQS lost_VVD it_PPH1 ,_, the_AT producer_NN1 was_VBDZ held_VVN not_XX liable._NNU 3_MC ._. 
But_CCB he_PPHS1 must_VM not_XX wilfully_RR damage_VVI or_CC destroy_VVI the_AT thing_NN1 ._. 
The_AT law_NN1 has_VHZ not_XX ,_, however_RR ,_, been_VBN fully_RR explored_VVN here_RL ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ simple_JJ enough_RR with_IW a_AT1 small_JJ and_CC imperishable_JJ article_NN1 like_II a_AT1 book_NN1 or_CC a_AT1 fountain_NN1 pen_NN1 ,_, but_CCB what_DDQ of_IO a_AT1 parcel_NN1 of_IO fish_NN or_CC a_AT1 piano_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ delivered_VVN at_II my_APPGE house_NN1 in_II my_APPGE absence_NN1 ?_? 
I_PPIS1 can_VM distrain_VVI them_PPHO2 damage_VV0 feasant_NN1 ,_, but_CCB what_DDQ I_PPIS1 want_VV0 to_TO do_VDI is_VBZ to_TO get_VVI rid_VVN of_IO them_PPHO2 and_CC I_PPIS1 am_VBM certainly_RR not_XX bound_VVNK to_TO incur_VVI the_AT expense_NN1 of_IO packing_NN1 and_CC returning_VVG them_PPHO2 ._. 
If_CS the_AT sender_NN1 is_VBZ traceable_JJ ,_, probably_RR the_AT most_RGT sensible_JJ thing_NN1 to_TO do_VDI is_VBZ to_TO notify_VVI him_PPHO1 that_CST the_AT goods_NN2 are_VBR at_II his_APPGE risk_NN1 and_CC to_TO request_VVI him_PPHO1 to_TO fetch_VVI them_PPHO2 ;_; and_CC if_CS (_( as_CSA is_VBZ likely_JJ with_IW perishables_NN2 )_) the_AT goods_NN2 become_VV0 a_AT1 nuisance_NN1 ,_, the_AT recipient_NN1 would_VM surely_RR be_VBI justified_VVN in_II abating_VVG the_AT nuisance_NN1 by_II destroying_VVG them_PPHO2 ,_, even_RR without_IW notice_NN1 to_II the_AT sender_NN1 ,_, if_CS the_AT emergency_NN1 were_VBDR so_RG pressing_JJ as_CSA to_TO leave_VVI him_PPHO1 no_AT time_NNT1 to_TO give_VVI it_PPH1 ._. 
The_AT position_NN1 is_VBZ rather_RG different_JJ when_CS the_AT goods_NN2 came_VVD into_II the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE hands_NN2 by_II31 reason_II32 of_II33 a_AT1 genuine_JJ ,_, voluntary_JJ bailment_NN1 for_IF then_RT the_AT bailee_NN1 has_VHZ a_AT1 statutory_JJ power_NN1 of_IO sale_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 if_CS the_AT bailor_NN1 fails_VVZ to_TO collect_VVI them._NNU 4_MC ._. 
The_AT involuntary_JJ bailee_NN1 does_VDZ no_AT wrong_JJ if_CS he_PPHS1 acts_VVZ reasonably_RR in_II trying_VVG to_TO return_VVI the_AT goods_NN2 ._. 
In_II Elvin_NP1 and_CC Powell_NP1 Ltd._JJ v._II Plummer_NP1 Roddis_NP1 Ltd._JJ ,_, X_ZZ1 ,_, a_AT1 swindler_NN1 ,_, directed_VVD the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 to_TO supply_VVI the_AT defendants_NN2 at_II Brighton_NP1 with_IW 350_MC worth_NN1 of_IO coats_NN2 ._. 
X_ZZ1 then_RT forged_VVD a_AT1 telegram_NN1 to_II the_AT defendants_NN2 :_: '_GE Goods_NN2 dispatched_VVN to_II your_APPGE branch_NN1 in_II error_NN1 ._. 
Sending_VVG van_NN1 to_TO collect_VVI ._. 
Elvin_NP1 and_CC Powell_NP1 ._. 
'_" Then_RT a_AT1 confederate_NN1 of_IO X_ZZ1 called_VVN on_II the_AT defendants_NN2 ,_, who_PNQS delivered_VVD the_AT coats_NN2 to_II him_PPHO1 under_II the_AT impression_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 '_GE agent_NN1 ._. 
The_AT confederate_NN1 disappeared_VVD ._. 
The_AT plaintiffs_NN2 sued_VVD the_AT defendants_NN2 for_IF (_( a_ZZ1 )_) negligence_NN1 as_CSA bailees_NN2 and_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) conversion_NN1 ._. 
The_AT jury_NN1 negatived_VVD negligence_NN1 and_CC found_VVD that_CST there_EX was_VBDZ contributory_JJ negligence_NN1 on_II the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 '_GE part_NN1 ,_, and_CC Hawke_NP1 J._NP1 held_VVD that_CST there_EX was_VBDZ no_AT conversion_NN1 ,_, for_IF the_AT defendants_NN2 had_VHD acted_VVN reasonably_RR ._. 
Contrast_NN1 with_IW this_DD1 case_NN1 Hiort_NN1 v._II Bott_NP1 ,_, where_CS A_ZZ1 mistakenly_RR sent_VVN an_AT1 invoice_NN1 for_IF barley_NN1 to_II B_ZZ1 (_( who_PNQS had_VHD ordered_VVN none_PN )_) ,_, which_DDQ stated_VVD that_CST B_ZZ1 had_VHD bought_VVN the_AT barley_NN1 of_IO A_ZZ1 through_II G_ZZ1 as_CSA broker_NN1 ;_; and_CC A_ZZ1 also_RR sent_VVN B_ZZ1 a_AT1 delivery_NN1 order_NN1 which_DDQ made_VVD the_AT barley_NN1 deliverable_JJ to_II the_AT order_NN1 of_IO A_ZZ1 or_CC of_IO B._NP1 G_ZZ1 then_RT told_VVD B_ZZ1 there_EX had_VHD been_VBN a_AT1 mistake_NN1 and_CC got_VVD B_NP1 to_TO endorse_VVI the_AT delivery_NN1 order_NN1 to_II himself_PPX1 ._. 
G_ZZ1 thereby_RR got_VVN hold_NN1 of_IO the_AT barley_NN1 ,_, disposed_VVN of_IO it_PPH1 and_CC absconded_VVN ._. 
Here_RL B_ZZ1 was_VBDZ held_VVN liable_JJ to_II A_ZZ1 for_IF conversion_NN1 ._. 
Had_VHD he_PPHS1 merely_RR handed_VVN the_AT delivery_NN1 order_NN1 to_II G_ZZ1 for_IF return_NN1 to_II A_ZZ1 ,_, the_AT decision_NN1 might_VM have_VHI been_VBN otherwise_RR ,_, but_CCB by_II endorsing_VVG it_PPH1 to_II G_NP1 he_PPHS1 had_VHD gone_VVN far_RR beyond_II what_DDQ was_VBDZ necessary_JJ to_TO secure_VVI the_AT return_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 to_II A._NNU (_( 2_MC )_) Abusing_VVG possession_NN1 Abuse_NN1 of_IO possession_NN1 which_DDQ the_AT defendant_NN1 already_RR has_VHZ may_VM take_VVI many_DA2 forms_NN2 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 sale_NN1 accompanied_VVN by_II delivery_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE goods_NN2 or_CC their_APPGE documents_NN2 of_IO title_NN1 to_II another_DD1 ,_, pawning_VVG them_PPHO2 ,_, or_CC otherwise_RR disposing_VVG of_IO them_PPHO2 ._. 
Even_RR the_AT use_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 borrowed_JJ car_NN1 for_IF the_AT transporting_NN1 of_IO uncustomed_JJ watches_NN2 is_VBZ a_AT1 conversion_NN1 of_IO the_AT car_NN1 ,_, for_IF such_DA conduct_NN1 if_CS discovered_VVN leads_VVZ to_II the_AT forfeiture_NN1 of_IO the_AT car_NN1 under_II the_AT Customs_NN2 and_CC Excise_NN1 Act_NN1 1952_MC and_CC its_APPGE consequent_JJ loss_NN1 to_II the_AT owner_NN1 ._. 
In_II less_RGR extreme_JJ cases_NN2 of_IO unauthorised_JJ use_NN1 by_II a_AT1 bailee_NN1 the_AT question_NN1 whether_CSW his_APPGE act_NN1 amounts_VVZ to_II conversion_NN1 probably_RR depends_VVZ upon_II the_AT degree_NN1 of_IO departure_NN1 from_II the_AT terms_NN2 of_IO the_AT bailment_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, at_II common_JJ law_NN1 an_AT1 omission_NN1 on_II41 the_II42 part_II43 of_II44 the_AT defendant_NN1 (_( e.g._REX negligently_RR allowing_VVG the_AT goods_NN2 to_TO be_VBI stolen_VVN )_) would_VM not_XX make_VVI him_PPHO1 liable_JJ for_IF conversion_NN1 though_CS if_CS he_PPHS1 were_VBDR a_AT1 bailee_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 he_PPHS1 might_VM be_VBI liable_JJ in_II detinue_NN1 in_II such_DA circumstances_NN2 ._. 
Since_CS this_DD1 type_NN1 of_IO detinue_NN1 is_VBZ now_RT by_II statute_NN1 assimilated_VVN to_II conversion_NN1 there_EX may_VM now_RT be_VBI liability_NN1 in_II conversion_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 mere_JJ bargain_NN1 and_CC sale_NN1 or_CC other_JJ attempted_JJ disposition_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 by_II a_AT1 person_NN1 without_IW a_AT1 transfer_NN1 of_IO possession_NN1 ,_, i._MC e._ZZ1 delivery_NN1 ,_, on_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 conversion_NN1 ;_; the_AT act_NN1 is_VBZ void_JJ and_CC does_VDZ not_XX change_VVI the_AT property_NN1 or_CC the_AT possession_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB in_II those_DD2 cases_NN2 where_RRQ a_AT1 person_NN1 in_II31 possession_II32 of_II33 goods_NN2 to_II which_DDQ he_PPHS1 has_VHZ no_AT title_NN1 may_VM confer_VVI a_AT1 good_JJ title_NN1 on_II someone_PN1 else_RR by_II selling_VVG ,_, pledging_VVG ,_, or_CC otherwise_RR disposing_VVG of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 ,_, then_RT ,_, since_CS the_AT true_JJ owner_NN1 is_VBZ deprived_VVN of_IO his_APPGE title_NN1 to_II the_AT goods_NN2 ,_, such_DA a_AT1 disposition_NN1 constitutes_VVZ conversion_NN1 whether_CSW31 or_CSW32 not_CSW33 the_AT goods_NN2 are_VBR actually_RR delivered_VVN ._. 
The_AT destruction_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 amounts_VVZ to_II conversion_NN1 and_CC so_RR does_VDZ the_AT alteration_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE nature_NN1 ._. 
If_CS I_PPIS1 make_VV0 an_AT1 omelette_NN1 of_IO your_APPGE eggs_NN2 or_CC a_AT1 statue_NN1 out_II21 of_II22 your_APPGE block_NN1 of_IO marble_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 is_VBZ conversion_NN1 ._. 
The_AT question_NN1 to_II whom_PNQO the_AT omelette_NN1 and_CC the_AT statue_NN1 belong_VV0 is_VBZ another_DD1 matter_NN1 ,_, and_CC Salmond_NP1 pointed_VVD out_RP that_CST the_AT attempts_NN2 of_IO the_AT older_JJR lawyers_NN2 to_TO transplant_VVI the_AT Roman_JJ law_NN1 of_IO specificatio_NN1 ,_, confusio_NN1 and_CC the_AT like_JJ to_II our_APPGE system_NN1 are_VBR of_IO small_JJ practical_JJ use_NN1 at_II the_AT present_JJ day_NNT1 ._. 
The_AT better_JJR method_NN1 of_IO solving_VVG the_AT question_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO split_VVI it_PPH1 into_II ,_, '_" Who_PNQS owns_VVZ the_AT newly_RR created_VVN thing_NN1 ?_? '_GE and_CC '_" Who_PNQS is_VBZ entitled_VVN to_II possession_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 ?_? 
'_GE The_AT probable_JJ answer_NN1 to_II the_AT first_MD inquiry_NN1 is_VBZ that_DD1 ownership_NN1 of_IO material_NN1 is_VBZ unchanged_JJ by_II alteration_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 ;_; to_II the_AT second_NNT1 ,_, that_CST the_AT court_NN1 will_VM use_VVI its_APPGE discretion_NN1 in_II making_VVG an_AT1 order_NN1 for_IF specific_JJ restitution_NN1 and_CC will_VM award_VVI the_AT thing_NN1 to_II him_PPHO1 whose_DDQGE interest_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT more_RGR substantial_JJ ,_, on_II condition_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 pays_VVZ the_AT value_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_NN1 's_GE interest_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB if_CS the_AT thing_NN1 is_VBZ perishable_JJ ,_, recovery_NN1 of_IO the_AT value_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 converted_VVN is_VBZ the_AT only_JJ remedy_NN1 possible_JJ ._. 
Where_CS the_AT property_NN1 of_IO A_ZZ1 is_VBZ mixed_VVN with_IW that_DD1 of_IO B_ZZ1 which_DDQ is_VBZ of_IO substantially_RR the_AT same_DA nature_NN1 and_CC quality_NN1 and_CC they_PPHS2 can_VM not_XX practicably_RR be_VBI separated_VVN (_( grain_NN1 in_II a_AT1 bin_NN1 ,_, oil_NN1 in_II a_AT1 tank_NN1 )_) the_AT mixture_NN1 is_VBZ owned_VVN in_RR21 common_RR22 in_II31 proportion_II32 to_II33 the_AT quantity_NN1 contributed_VVN by_II each_DD1 and_CC the_AT law_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT same_DA whether_CSW the_AT mixing_NN1 is_VBZ wrongful_JJ or_CC by_II consent_NN1 ._. 
Demand_VV0 and_CC refusal_NN1 ._. 
Proof_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 demand_NN1 by_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 for_IF the_AT return_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 met_VVN by_II a_AT1 refusal_NN1 of_IO the_AT defendant_NN1 is_VBZ one_MC1 of_IO the_AT common_JJ ways_NN2 of_IO producing_VVG evidence_NN1 of_IO conversion_NN1 for_IF it_PPH1 tends_VVZ to_TO show_VVI that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE detention_NN1 of_IO them_PPHO2 is_VBZ wrongful_JJ ._. 
The_AT refusal_NN1 must_VM ,_, however_RR ,_, be_VBI unconditional_JJ or_CC ,_, if_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ conditional_JJ ,_, the_AT condition_NN1 must_VM be_VBI an_AT1 unreasonable_JJ one_PN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ certainly_RR not_XX unreasonable_JJ to_TO refuse_VVI to_TO give_VVI up_RP a_AT1 bank_NN1 note_NN1 which_DDQ you_PPY pick_VV0 up_RP in_II the_AT street_NN1 to_II the_AT first_MD stranger_NN1 who_PNQS alleges_VVZ it_PPH1 to_TO be_VBI his_PPGE ,_, if_CS you_PPY tell_VV0 him_PPHO1 that_CST you_PPY must_VM make_VVI further_JJR inquiries_NN2 or_CC that_CST he_PPHS1 must_VM produce_VVI evidence_NN1 which_DDQ will_VM authenticate_VVI his_APPGE claim_NN1 ._. 
Whether_CSW the_AT length_NN1 of_IO time_NNT1 spent_VVN in_II making_VVG these_DD2 inquiries_NN2 and_CC the_AT mode_NN1 in_II which_DDQ they_PPHS2 are_VBR made_VVN are_VBR reasonable_JJ or_CC not_XX may_VM be_VBI nice_JJ questions_NN2 ._. 
Where_RRQ ,_, however_RR ,_, there_EX is_VBZ no_AT question_NN1 of_IO pursuing_VVG enquiries_NN2 to_TO see_VVI whether_CSW delivery_NN1 to_II the_AT claimant_NN1 is_VBZ proper_JJ ,_, the_AT defendant_NN1 can_VM not_XX justify_VVI a_AT1 refusal_NN1 because_CS compliance_NN1 with_IW the_AT demand_NN1 may_VM have_VHI unpleasant_JJ consequences_NN2 for_IF him_PPHO1 ._. 
In_II Howard_NP1 E._NP1 Perry_NP1 &amp;_CC Co_NP1 ._. 
Ltd._JJ v._II B.R.B._NP1 it_PPH1 was_VBDZ held_VVN that_CST the_AT defendants_NN2 '_GE refusal_NN1 to_TO allow_VVI the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 to_TO enter_VVI their_APPGE premises_NN2 to_TO collect_VVI goods_NN2 which_DDQ belonged_VVD to_II them_PPHO2 could_VM not_XX be_VBI justified_VVN by_II their_APPGE fear_NN1 of_IO intensified_JJ industrial_JJ action._NNU (_( 3_MC )_) Residual_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO conversion_NN1 Though_CS most_DAT cases_NN2 of_IO conversion_NN1 at_II common_JJ law_NN1 fall_NN1 within_II the_AT categories_NN2 of_IO taking_VVG or_CC abusing_VVG possession_NN1 ,_, such_DA acts_NN2 on_II41 the_II42 part_II43 of_II44 the_AT defendant_NN1 are_VBR not_XX a_AT1 necessary_JJ element_NN1 in_II liability_NN1 provided_CS he_PPHS1 has_VHZ dealt_VVN with_IW the_AT goods_NN2 in_II a_AT1 way_NN1 inconsistent_JJ with_IW the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE rights_NN2 ,_, such_II21 as_II22 signing_VVG a_AT1 delivery_NN1 order_NN1 for_IF goods_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR delivered_VVN under_II that_DD1 order_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 has_VHZ even_RR been_VBN held_VVN that_CST refusing_VVG to_II hand_NN1 over_II the_AT registration_NN1 book_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE car_NN1 amounts_VVZ to_II conversion_NN1 of_IO the_AT car_NN1 since_CS the_AT absence_NN1 of_IO the_AT book_NN1 makes_VVZ it_PPH1 difficult_JJ to_TO deal_VVI with_IW the_AT car_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, dicta_NN2 in_II Oakley_NP1 v._II Lyster_NP1 went_VVD further_RRR and_CC suggested_VVD that_CST a_AT1 bare_JJ denial_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE title_NN1 unaccompanied_JJ by_II any_DD possession_NN1 of_IO or_CC dealing_VVG with_IW the_AT goods_NN2 constituted_JJ conversion_NN1 ._. 
The_AT actual_JJ decision_NN1 did_VDD not_XX support_VVI such_DA a_AT1 wide_JJ doctrine_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ was_VBDZ laid_VVN to_II rest_NN1 by_II the_AT Torts_NP1 (_( Interference_NN1 with_IW Goods_NN2 )_) Act_NN1 1977_MC ._. 
Where_CS the_AT defendant_NN1 is_VBZ in_II31 possession_II32 of_II33 the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE goods_NN2 there_EX is_VBZ no_AT doubt_NN1 that_CST an_AT1 unjustified_JJ refusal_NN1 to_TO return_VVI them_PPHO2 generally_RR constitutes_VVZ conversion_NN1 but_CCB it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN held_VVN that_CST where_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 has_VHZ possession_NN1 there_EX is_VBZ no_AT conversion_NN1 if_CS the_AT defendant_NN1 simply_RR refuses_VVZ to_TO allow_VVI the_AT plaintiff_NN1 to_TO remove_VVI them_PPHO2 ._. 
In_II England_NP1 v._II Cowley_NP1 M._NN1 owed_VVD money_NN1 to_II both_DB2 the_AT plaintiff_NN1 and_CC the_AT defendant_NN1 ,_, her_APPGE landlord_NN1 ._. 
The_AT plaintiff_NN1 held_VVD a_AT1 bill_NN1 of_IO sale_NN1 over_RG M_MC 's_GE furniture_NN1 and_CC put_VVD a_AT1 man_NN1 into_II M_MC 's_GE house_NN1 to_TO take_VVI charge_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 ._. 
When_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 then_RT attempted_VVD to_TO remove_VVI the_AT furniture_NN1 the_AT defendant_NN1 forbade_VVD him_PPHO1 to_TO do_VDI so_RR and_CC stationed_VVN a_AT1 policeman_NN1 at_II the_AT gate_NN1 to_TO make_VVI sure_JJ he_PPHS1 did_VDD not_XX ._. 
The_AT defendant_NN1 was_VBDZ held_VVN not_XX liable_JJ for_IF conversion_NN1 ._. 
Bramwell_VV0 B._NP1 said_VVD :_: '_" In_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO maintain_VVI trover_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 plaintiff_NN1 who_PNQS is_VBZ left_VVN in_II31 possession_II32 of_II33 the_AT goods_NN2 must_VM prove_VVI that_CST his_APPGE dominion_NN1 over_II his_APPGE property_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN interfered_VVN with_IW ,_, not_XX in_II some_DD particular_JJ way_NN1 ,_, but_CCB altogether_RR ;_; that_CST he_PPHS1 has_VHZ been_VBN entirely_RR deprived_VVN of_IO the_AT use_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX enough_RR that_CST a_AT1 man_NN1 should_VM say_VVI that_CST something_PN1 shall_VM not_XX be_VBI done_VDN by_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ;_; he_PPHS1 must_VM say_VVI that_CST nothing_PN1 shall_VM ._. 
'_GE Conversion_NN1 under_II the_AT Torts_NP1 (_( Interference_NN1 with_IW Goods_NN2 )_) Act_NN1 1977_MC Apart_II21 from_II22 one_MC1 or_CC two_MC minor_JJ matters_NN2 this_DD1 Act_NN1 did_VDD not_XX interfere_VVI with_IW the_AT concept_NN1 of_IO conversion_NN1 at_II common_JJ law_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, the_AT Act_NN1 abolished_VVN detinue_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ was_VBDZ wrongful_JJ retention_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 chattel_NN1 ._. 
In_II most_DAT cases_NN2 of_IO detinue_NN1 there_EX would_VM be_VBI a_AT1 concurrent_JJ liability_NN1 in_II conversion_NN1 based_VVN upon_II a_AT1 demand_NN1 and_CC refusal_NN1 to_TO return_VVI but_CCB as_CSA we_PPIS2 have_VH0 seen_VVN conversion_NN1 required_VVN a_AT1 positive_JJ act_NN1 and_CC had_VHD never_RR lain_VVN where_CS the_AT defendant_NN1 once_RR had_VHD the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE goods_NN2 but_CCB was_VBDZ unable_JK to_TO return_VVI them_PPHO2 because_CS they_PPHS2 had_VHD been_VBN lost_VVN or_CC negligently_RR destroyed_VVN ._. 
Accordingly_RR ,_, to_TO deal_VVI with_IW this_DD1 situation_NN1 ,_, the_AT Act_NN1 provides_VVZ that_CST an_AT1 '_GE action_NN1 lies_VVZ in_II conversion_NN1 for_IF loss_NN1 or_CC destruction_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 which_DDQ a_AT1 bailee_NN1 has_VHZ allowed_VVN to_TO happen_VVI in_II breach_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE duty_NN1 to_II his_APPGE bailor_NN1 (_( that_REX41 is_REX42 to_REX43 say_REX44 it_PPH1 lies_VVZ in_II a_AT1 case_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ not_XX otherwise_RR conversion_NN1 ,_, but_CCB would_VM have_VHI been_VBN detinue_NN1 before_II detinue_NN1 was_VBDZ abolished_VVN )_) ._. 
'_GE Conversion_NN1 and_CC co-owners_NN2 As_II21 between_II22 co-owners_NN2 there_EX is_VBZ unity_NN1 of_IO possession_NN1 ,_, each_DD1 is_VBZ entitled_VVN to_II possession_NN1 and_CC use_NN1 of_IO the_AT chattel_NN1 ,_, and_CC the_AT mere_JJ enjoyment_NN1 in_II one_MC1 way_NN1 or_CC another_DD1 by_II one_MC1 co-owner_NN1 can_VM not_XX amount_NN1 to_II conversion_NN1 against_II the_AT other_JJ ._. 
The_AT assertion_NN1 of_IO exclusive_JJ rights_NN2 will_VM ,_, however_RR ,_, be_VBI actionable_JJ in_II tort_NN1 ._. 
By_II section_NN1 10_MC of_IO the_AT Torts_NP1 (_( Interference_NN1 with_IW Goods_NN2 )_) Act_NN1 1977_MC co-ownership_NN1 is_VBZ no_AT defence_NN1 to_II an_AT1 action_NN1 in_II conversion_NN1 where_CS one_PN1 ,_, without_IW the_AT authority_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_NN1 '_GE (_( a_ZZ1 )_) destroys_VVZ the_AT goods_NN2 ,_, or_CC disposes_VVZ of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 in_II a_AT1 way_NN1 giving_VVG a_AT1 good_JJ title_NN1 to_II the_AT entire_JJ property_NN1 in_II the_AT goods_NN2 or_CC otherwise_RR does_VDZ anything_PN1 equivalent_JJ to_II the_AT destruction_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_NN1 's_GE interest_NN1 in_II the_AT goods_NN2 ,_, or_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) purports_VVZ to_TO dispose_VVI of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 in_II a_AT1 way_NN1 which_DDQ would_VM give_VVI a_AT1 good_JJ title_NN1 to_II the_AT entire_JJ property_NN1 in_II the_AT goods_NN2 if_CS he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ acting_VVG with_IW the_AT authority_NN1 of_IO all_DB co-owners_NN2 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 ._. 
'_GE Paragraph_NN1 (_( a_ZZ1 )_) is_VBZ by_II31 way_II32 of_II33 restatement_NN1 of_IO the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 ;_; paragraph_NN1 (_( b_ZZ1 )_) extends_VVZ it_PPH1 so_BCL21 as_BCL22 to_TO make_VVI the_AT disposition_NN1 conversion_NN1 even_CS21 if_CS22 it_PPH1 does_VDZ not_XX confer_VVI a_AT1 good_JJ title_NN1 on_II the_AT disponee_NN1 ._. 
Title_NN1 of_IO plaintiff_NN1 What_DDQ kind_NN1 of_IO right_NN1 to_II the_AT goods_NN2 must_VM the_AT plaintiff_NN1 have_VHI in_BCL21 order_BCL22 that_CST interference_NN1 with_IW it_PPH1 may_VM amount_NN1 to_II conversion_NN1 ?_? 
The_AT answer_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST he_PPHS1 can_VM maintain_VVI the_AT action_NN1 if_CS at_II the_AT time_NNT1 of_IO the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE act_NN1 he_PPHS1 had_VHD (_( a_ZZ1 )_) ownership_NN1 and_CC possession_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 ,_, or_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) possession_NN1 of_IO them_PPHO2 ;_; or_CC (_( c_ZZ1 )_) an_AT1 immediate_JJ right_NN1 to_TO possess_VVI them_PPHO2 ,_, but_CCB without_IW either_RR ownership_NN1 or_CC actual_JJ possession_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI the_AT law_NN1 ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 can_VM be_VBI elicited_VVN only_RR from_II a_AT1 great_JJ confusion_NN1 of_IO terminology_NN1 in_II the_AT reports_NN2 ._. 
Thus_RR it_PPH1 is_VBZ said_VVN in_II several_DA2 cases_NN2 that_CST the_AT plaintiff_NN1 must_VM have_VHI '_GE a_AT1 right_NN1 of_IO property_NN1 in_II the_AT thing_NN1 and_CC a_AT1 right_NN1 of_IO possession_NN1 '_GE and_CC that_CST unless_CS both_DB2 these_DD2 rights_NN2 concur_VV0 the_AT action_NN1 will_VM not_XX lie_VVI ._. 
If_CS '_GE right_NN1 of_IO property_NN1 '_GE means_NN '_GE ownership_NN1 ,_, '_" this_DD1 might_VM lead_VVI one_PN1 to_TO infer_VVI that_CST no_PN121 one_PN122 can_VM sue_VVI for_IF conversion_NN1 except_II an_AT1 owner_NN1 in_II possession_NN1 at_II the_AT date_NN1 of_IO the_AT alleged_JJ conversion_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB that_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX so_RR ,_, for_IF a_AT1 bailee_NN1 has_VHZ only_JJ possession_NN1 and_CC not_XX ownership_NN1 (_( which_DDQ remains_VVZ in_II the_AT bailor_NN1 )_) ,_, and_CC yet_RR the_AT bailee_NN1 can_VM sue_VVI a_AT1 third_MD party_NN1 for_IF conversion_NN1 ._. 
And_CC ,_, as_CSA we_PPIS2 shall_VM see_VVI ,_, one_PN1 who_PNQS has_VHZ mere_JJ possession_NN1 at_II the_AT date_NN1 of_IO the_AT conversion_NN1 can_VM generally_RR sue_VVI ,_, and_CC so_RR can_VM one_PN1 who_PNQS has_VHZ no_AT more_DAR than_CSN a_AT1 right_JJ to_TO possess_VVI ._. 
Examples_NN2 of_IO right_JJ to_TO possess_VVI There_RL is_VBZ no_AT need_NN1 to_TO enlarge_VVI upon_II (_( a_ZZ1 )_) ownership_NN1 and_CC possession_NN1 ,_, or_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) possession_NN1 ,_, for_IF possession_NN1 was_VBDZ analysed_VVN in_II Chapter_NN1 13_MC ._. 
But_CCB (_( c_ZZ1 )_) ,_, the_AT immediate_JJ right_NN1 to_TO possess_VVI ,_, must_VM be_VBI briefly_RR examined_VVN ._. 
A_AT1 reversionary_JJ owner_NN1 out_II21 of_II22 possession_NN1 certainly_RR has_VHZ not_XX got_VVN it_PPH1 ,_, e.g._REX a_AT1 landlord_NN1 of_IO premises_NN2 let_VV0 together_RL with_IW furniture_NN1 to_II a_AT1 tenant_NN1 whose_DDQGE term_NN1 is_VBZ still_RR unexpired_JJ ;_; if_CS the_AT furniture_NN1 is_VBZ wrongfully_RR seized_VVN by_II the_AT sheriff_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT tenant_NN1 and_CC not_XX the_AT landlord_NN1 who_PNQS can_VM sue_VVI for_IF conversion_NN1 ._. 
Again_RT ,_, a_AT1 servant_NN1 in_II custody_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE master_NN1 's_GE goods_NN2 has_VHZ not_XX possession_NN1 of_IO them_PPHO2 ,_, for_IF it_PPH1 is_VBZ constructively_RR in_II the_AT master_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB if_CS the_AT master_NN1 has_VHZ made_VVN him_PPHO1 a_AT1 bailee_NN1 of_IO them_PPHO2 so_BCL21 as_BCL22 to_TO vest_VVI him_PPHO1 with_IW exclusive_JJ possession_NN1 ,_, then_RT ,_, like_II any_DD other_JJ bailee_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 sort_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 has_VHZ it_PPH1 ;_; so_RR ,_, too_RR ,_, if_CS goods_NN2 are_VBR delivered_VVN to_II him_PPHO1 to_II hand_NN1 to_II his_APPGE master_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 has_VHZ possession_NN1 of_IO them_PPHO2 until_CS he_PPHS1 has_VHZ done_VDN some_DD act_NN1 which_DDQ transfers_VVZ it_PPH1 to_II his_APPGE master_NN1 ,_, e.g._REX a_AT1 shop-assistant_NN1 has_VHZ possession_NN1 of_IO money_NN1 paid_VVN to_II him_PPHO1 by_II a_AT1 customer_NN1 until_CS he_PPHS1 puts_VVZ it_PPH1 in_II the_AT till_NN1 ._. 
Up_II21 to_II22 that_DD1 moment_NN1 the_AT master_NN1 has_VHZ only_RR the_AT right_NN1 to_TO possess_VVI ._. 
These_DD2 examples_NN2 are_VBR tolerably_RR plain_JJ ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 must_VM depend_VVI to_II a_AT1 large_JJ extent_NN1 on_II the_AT facts_NN2 of_IO each_DD1 case_NN1 whether_CSW the_AT law_NN1 will_VM attribute_VVI to_II a_AT1 person_NN1 the_AT immediate_JJ right_NN1 to_TO possess_VVI ._. 
A_AT1 bailor_NN1 has_VHZ it_PPH1 against_II a_AT1 mere_JJ bailee_NN1 at_II pleasure_NN1 even_CS21 if_CS22 he_PPHS1 never_RR himself_PPX1 had_VHD actual_JJ possession_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 and_CC only_RR acquired_VVN title_NN1 by_II virtue_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 illegal_JJ but_CCB completely_RR executed_VVN contract_NN1 of_IO sale_NN1 ._. 
In_II Manders_NP1 v._II Williams_NP1 ,_, brewers_NN2 supplied_VVD porter_NN1 in_II casks_NN2 to_II a_AT1 publican_NN1 on_II condition_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 returned_VVD the_AT empty_JJ casks_NN2 ;_; held_VVD ,_, they_PPHS2 could_VM maintain_VVI trover_NN1 against_II a_AT1 sheriff_NN1 who_PNQS took_VVD the_AT casks_NN2 in_II execution_NN1 for_IF the_AT publican_NN1 's_GE debts_NN2 ,_, for_IF directly_RR they_PPHS2 were_VBDR emptied_VVN the_AT right_NN1 to_II immediate_JJ possession_NN1 was_VBDZ in_II the_AT brewers_NN2 ,_, the_AT publican_NN1 becoming_VVG a_AT1 mere_JJ bailee_NN1 at_II will_NN1 ._. 
So_RR ,_, too_RR ,_, where_CS furniture_NN1 dealers_NN2 transferred_JJ furniture_NN1 on_II hire-purchase_NN1 to_II X_ZZ1 with_IW an_AT1 express_JJ proviso_NN1 that_CST the_AT hiring_NN1 was_VBDZ to_TO terminate_VVI without_IW any_DD notice_NN1 if_CS the_AT goods_NN2 were_VBDR taken_VVN in_II execution_NN1 for_IF debt_NN1 ,_, they_PPHS2 could_VM sue_VVI the_AT sheriff_NN1 for_IF conversion_NN1 when_CS he_PPHS1 levied_VVD execution_NN1 on_II them_PPHO2 ._. 
The_AT wrongful_JJ sale_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 subject_II21 to_II22 a_AT1 hire-purchase_JJ agreement_NN1 will_VM constitute_VVI a_AT1 repudiation_NN1 and_CC hence_RR vest_VV0 a_AT1 right_NN1 to_II immediate_JJ possession_NN1 in_II the_AT finance_NN1 company_NN1 even_CS21 though_CS22 the_AT agreement_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX expressly_RR provide_VVI for_IF this_DD1 ._. 
In_II a_AT1 simple_JJ bailment_NN1 ,_, i.e._REX one_PN1 which_DDQ does_VDZ not_XX exclude_VVI the_AT bailor_NN1 from_II possession_NN1 ,_, an_AT1 action_NN1 for_IF conversion_NN1 against_II a_AT1 third_MD person_NN1 is_VBZ maintainable_JJ by_II either_RR bailor_NN1 or_CC bailee_NN1 ;_; by_II the_AT bailee_NN1 because_CS he_PPHS1 is_VBZ in_II possession_NN1 ,_, by_II the_AT bailor_NN1 because_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ said_VVN that_CST his_APPGE title_NN1 to_II the_AT goods_NN2 draws_VVZ with_IW it_PPH1 the_AT right_NN1 to_II possession_NN1 ,_, that_CST the_AT bailee_NN1 is_VBZ something_PN1 like_II his_APPGE servant_NN1 and_CC that_CST the_AT possession_NN1 of_IO the_AT one_PN1 is_VBZ equivalent_JJ to_II that_DD1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ ._. 
A_AT1 buyer_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 can_VM sue_VVI the_AT seller_NN1 or_CC a_AT1 third_MD party_NN1 for_IF conversion_NN1 if_CS he_PPHS1 has_VHZ ownership_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 even_CS21 though_CS22 he_PPHS1 has_VHZ not_XX yet_RR got_VVN possession_NN1 of_IO them._NNU but_CCB he_PPHS1 can_VM not_XX sue_VVI the_AT third_MD party_NN1 if_CS ownership_NN1 has_VHZ passed_VVN to_II such_DA third_MD person_NN1 by_II31 reason_II32 of_II33 exceptions_NN2 to_II the_AT rule_NN1 nemo_NN1 dat_DD1 quod_FW non_FU habet_NN1 ,_, e.g._REX by_II bona_JJ21 fide_JJ22 purchase_NN1 for_IF value_NN1 in_II market_NN1 overt_JJ ;_; the_AT seller_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, is_VBZ liable_JJ for_IF conversion_NN1 to_II the_AT original_JJ buyer_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 person_NN1 who_PNQS is_VBZ entitled_VVN to_II the_AT temporary_JJ possession_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 chattel_NN1 and_CC who_PNQS delivers_VVZ it_PPH1 back_RP to_II the_AT owner_NN1 for_IF a_AT1 special_JJ purpose_NN1 may_VM ,_, after_CS that_DD1 purpose_NN1 is_VBZ satisfied_JJ and_CC during_II the_AT existence_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE temporary_JJ right_NN1 ,_, sue_VV0 the_AT owner_NN1 for_IF conversion_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 ;_; a_RR21 fortiori_RR22 he_PPHS1 can_VM sue_VVI anyone_PN1 else_RR ._. 
Jus_NN1 tertii_NN2 Once_RR a_AT1 system_NN1 of_IO law_NN1 accepts_VVZ possession_NN1 as_II a_AT1 sufficient_JJ foundation_NN1 for_IF a_AT1 claim_NN1 for_IF recovery_NN1 of_IO personal_JJ property_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ faced_VVN with_IW the_AT question_NN1 of_IO how_RGQ far_RR the_AT defendant_NN1 should_VM be_VBI allowed_VVN to_TO raise_VVI the_AT issue_NN1 that_CST a_AT1 third_MD party_NN1 has_VHZ a_AT1 better_JJR right_NN1 to_II the_AT property_NN1 than_CSN the_AT plaintiff_NN1 the_AT jus_NN1 tertii_NN2 ._. 
There_EX are_VBR arguments_NN2 either_DD1 way_NN1 ._. 
On_II the_AT one_MC1 hand_NN1 ,_, refusal_NN1 to_TO admit_VVI the_AT jus_NN1 tertii_NN2 allows_VVZ recovery_NN1 by_II a_AT1 plaintiff_NN1 who_PNQS may_VM have_VHI himself_PPX1 wrongfully_RR dispossessed_VVN the_AT true_JJ owner_NN1 and_CC also_RR exposes_VVZ the_AT wrongdoer_NN1 to_II the_AT risk_NN1 of_IO multiple_JJ liability_NN1 ._. 
On_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI argued_VVN that_CST a_AT1 person_NN1 who_PNQS has_VHZ dispossessed_VVN another_DD1 should_VM have_VHI no_AT right_NN1 to_TO raise_VVI such_DA issues_NN2 concerning_II the_AT relationship_NN1 between_II the_AT dispossessed_JJ and_CC some_DD other_JJ party_NN1 having_VHG a_AT1 claim_NN1 over_II the_AT goods_NN2 ,_, for_CS there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 serious_JJ risk_NN1 of_IO abuse_NN1 and_CC of_IO the_AT interminable_JJ prolongation_NN1 of_IO actions_NN2 ._. 
The_AT common_JJ law_NN1 compromised_VVD ._. 
If_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 was_VBDZ in_II possession_NN1 at_II the_AT time_NNT1 of_IO the_AT conversion_NN1 ,_, the_AT defendant_NN1 could_VM not_XX set_VVI up_RP the_AT jus_NN1 tertii_NN2 ,_, unless_CS he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ acting_VVG under_II the_AT authority_NN1 of_IO the_AT true_JJ owner_NN1 ._. 
Where_RRQ ,_, however_RR ,_, the_AT plaintiff_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX in_II possession_NN1 at_II the_AT time_NNT1 of_IO the_AT conversion_NN1 but_CCB relied_VVD on_II his_APPGE right_NN1 to_II possession_NN1 jus_NN1 tertii_NN2 could_VM be_VBI pleaded_VVN by_II the_AT defendant_NN1 ._. 
To_II this_DD1 rule_NN1 there_EX was_VBDZ an_AT1 exception_NN1 where_CS the_AT defendant_NN1 was_VBDZ the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE bailee_NN1 ,_, for_IF the_AT defendant_NN1 was_VBDZ regarded_VVN as_II being_VBG estopped_VVN from_II denying_VVG the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE title_NN1 unless_CS evicted_VVN by_II title_NN1 paramount_JJ or_CC defending_VVG the_AT action_NN1 on_II31 behalf_II32 of_II33 the_AT true_JJ owner_NN1 ._. 
These_DD2 rules_NN2 were_VBDR fundamentally_RR changed_VVN by_II the_AT Torts_NP1 (_( Interference_NN1 with_IW Goods_NN2 )_) Act_NN1 1977_MC ._. 
Since_II then_RT ,_, in_II an_AT1 action_NN1 for_IF '_GE Wrongful_JJ interference_NN1 with_IW goods_NN2 '_GE the_AT defendant_NN1 is_VBZ entitled_VVN to_TO show_VVI ,_, in_II31 accordance_II32 with_II33 Rules_NN2 of_IO Court_NN1 ,_, that_CST a_AT1 third_MD party_NN1 has_VHZ a_AT1 better_JJR right_NN1 than_CSN the_AT plaintiff_NN1 as_CSA respects_VVZ all_DB or_CC any_DD part_NN1 of_IO the_AT interest_NN1 claimed_VVN by_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 or_CC in_II right_NN1 of_IO which_DDQ he_PPHS1 sues_VVZ ._. 
Rules_NN2 of_IO Court_NN1 made_VVN under_II the_AT Act_NN1 require_VV0 the_AT plaintiff_NN1 to_TO give_VVI particulars_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE title_NN1 and_CC to_TO identify_VVI any_DD other_JJ person_NN1 whom_PNQO he_PPHS1 knows_VVZ to_TO have_VHI a_AT1 claim_NN1 on_II the_AT goods_NN2 ._. 
The_AT defendant_NN1 may_VM apply_VVI for_IF directions_NN2 as_II21 to_II22 whether_CSW any_DD third_MD person_NN1 with_IW a_AT1 competing_JJ claim_NN1 should_VM be_VBI joined_VVN and_CC if_CS that_DD1 third_MD person_NN1 fails_VVZ to_TO appear_VVI on_II such_DA a_AT1 successful_JJ application_NN1 the_AT court_NN1 may_VM deprive_VVI him_PPHO1 of_IO any_DD right_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 against_II the_AT defendant_NN1 ._. 
The_AT general_JJ purpose_NN1 of_IO these_DD2 provisions_NN2 is_VBZ to_TO allow_VVI the_AT court_NN1 so_RG far_RR as_CSA possible_JJ to_TO settle_VVI competing_JJ claims_NN2 in_II one_MC1 set_NN1 of_IO proceedings_NN2 ._. 
Where_CS all_DB the_AT claimants_NN2 are_VBR before_II the_AT court_NN1 under_II section_NN1 8_MC ,_, then_RT the_AT relief_NN1 granted_VVN is_VBZ to_TO be_VBI '_GE such_II21 as_II22 to_TO avoid_VVI double_JJ liability_NN1 of_IO the_AT wrongdoer_NN1 ,_, '_" which_DDQ presumably_RR means_VVZ that_CST the_AT court_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO apportion_VVI the_AT damages_NN2 representing_VVG the_AT value_NN1 of_IO the_AT chattel_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 the_AT respective_JJ interests_NN2 of_IO the_AT claimants_NN2 ._. 
The_AT Act_NN1 is_VBZ perhaps_RR not_XX so_RG clear_JJ where_CS only_RR the_AT claimant_NN1 with_IW a_AT1 possessory_JJ title_NN1 is_VBZ before_II the_AT court_NN1 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, because_CS the_AT true_JJ owner_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX appear_VVI or_CC can_VM not_XX be_VBI found_VVN ._. 
A_AT1 literal_JJ interpretation_NN1 of_IO section_NN1 8_MC might_VM suggest_VVI that_CST the_AT ability_NN1 to_TO plead_VVI the_AT jus_NN1 tertii_NN2 provides_VVZ the_AT defendant_NN1 with_IW a_AT1 defence_NN1 ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ submitted_VVN that_CST in_II such_DA a_AT1 case_NN1 the_AT provisions_NN2 of_IO section_NN1 7_MC preserve_VV0 the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 rule_NN1 that_CST a_AT1 claimant_NN1 relying_VVG on_II a_AT1 possessory_JJ interest_NN1 may_VM recover_VVI the_AT full_JJ value_NN1 of_IO the_AT thing_NN1 converted_VVD ._. 
In_II such_DA a_AT1 situation_NN1 the_AT true_JJ owner_NN1 may_VM have_VHI been_VBN divested_VVN of_IO his_APPGE claim_NN1 against_II the_AT wrongdoer_NN1 under_II section_NN1 8(2)_FO (_( d_ZZ1 )_) but_CCB if_CS not_XX ,_, he_PPHS1 might_VM still_RR be_VBI entitled_VVN to_TO sue_VVI by_II virtue_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE title_NN1 ._. 
Two_MC provisions_NN2 of_IO the_AT Act_NN1 are_VBR aimed_VVN at_II this_DD1 problem_NN1 ._. 
By_II section_NN1 7(3)_FO ,_, '_GE on_II satisfaction_NN1 ,_, in_II whole_NN1 or_CC in_RR21 part_RR22 ,_, of_IO any_DD claim_NN1 for_IF an_AT1 amount_NN1 exceeding_VVG that_DD1 recoverable_JJ if_CS subsection_NN1 (_( 2_MC )_) applied_VVD &lsqb;_( i.e._REX where_CS both_DB2 claimants_NN2 are_VBR parties_NN2 &rsqb;_) ,_, the_AT claimant_NN1 is_VBZ liable_JJ to_TO account_VVI over_RP to_II the_AT other_JJ person_NN1 having_VHG a_AT1 right_NN1 to_TO claim_VVI to_II such_DA extent_NN1 as_CSA will_VM avoid_VVI double_JJ liability_NN1 '_GE ;_; and_CC by_II section_NN1 7(4)_FO ,_, '_" where_RRQ ,_, as_II a_AT1 result_NN1 of_IO enforcement_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 double_JJ liability_NN1 ,_, any_DD claimant_NN1 is_VBZ unjustly_RR enriched_VVN to_II any_DD extent_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 shall_VM be_VBI liable_JJ to_TO reimburse_VVI the_AT wrongdoer_NN1 to_II that_DD1 extent_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Thus_RR if_CS A_ZZ1 loses_VVZ his_APPGE goods_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ are_VBR found_VVN by_II B_ZZ1 and_CC then_RT converted_VVN by_II C_NP1 ,_, both_RR B_ZZ1 and_CC A_ZZ1 might_VM bring_VVI successive_JJ claims_NN2 against_II C._NP1 If_CS B_ZZ1 accounts_NN2 to_II A_ZZ1 under_II section_NN1 7(3)_FO ,_, A_AT1 must_NN1 then_RT reimburse_VV0 C._ZZ1 If_CS B_ZZ1 does_VDZ not_XX so_RR account_VVI ,_, B_ZZ1 is_VBZ liable_JJ to_TO reimburse_VVI C._ZZ1 A_ZZ1 '_GE double_JJ liability_NN1 '_GE would_VM ,_, however_RR ,_, still_RR exist_VV0 if_CS both_RR A_ZZ1 and_CC B_ZZ1 were_VBDR insolvent_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN suggested_VVN above_II that_DD1 where_CS the_AT true_JJ owner_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 can_VM not_XX be_VBI involved_JJ in_II the_AT proceedings_NN2 the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 rule_NN1 that_CST a_AT1 mere_JJ possessory_JJ interest_NN1 entitles_VVZ the_AT plaintiff_NN1 to_TO recover_VVI the_AT full_JJ value_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 against_II a_AT1 wrongdoer_NN1 still_RR applies_VVZ ._. 
Does_VDZ this_DD1 mean_VVI that_CST if_CS there_EX is_VBZ clear_JJ evidence_NN1 that_CST the_AT goods_NN2 were_VBDR stolen_VVN by_II P_ZZ1 from_II X_ZZ1 (_( who_PNQS has_VHZ since_RR disappeared_VVN )_) P_ZZ1 may_VM nevertheless_RR recover_VVI from_II D_ZZ1 ,_, who_PNQS converted_VVD them_PPHO2 ?_? 
It_PPH1 seems_VVZ that_CST the_AT law_NN1 's_GE answer_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST notwithstanding_II the_AT general_JJ rule_NN1 about_II the_AT jus_NN1 tertii_NN2 P_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 claim_VV0 may_VM be_VBI barred_VVN by_II public_JJ policy_NN1 if_CS to_TO assist_VVI in_II recovery_NN1 of_IO the_AT property_NN1 would_VM offend_VVI the_AT court_NN1 's_GE conscience_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, not_XX every_AT1 illegal_JJ acquisition_NN1 by_II P_ZZ1 will_VM call_VVI this_DD1 into_II play_NN1 ._. 
Finding_VVG The_AT popular_JJ saying_VVG that_DD1 '_VBZ Finding_NN1 is_VBZ keeping_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ a_AT1 dangerous_JJ half-truth_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ needs_VVZ a_AT1 good_JJ deal_NN1 of_IO expansion_NN1 and_CC qualification_NN1 to_TO make_VVI it_PPH1 square_JJ with_IW the_AT law_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 finder_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 chattel_NN1 has_VHZ such_DA a_AT1 title_NN1 as_CSA will_VM enable_VVI him_PPHO1 to_TO keep_VVI it_PPH1 against_II everyone_PN1 ,_, with_IW two_MC exceptions_NN2 :_: 1_MC1 ._. 
The_AT rightful_JJ owner_NN1 ._. 
Far_RR from_II getting_VVG any_DD title_NN1 against_II him_PPHO1 ,_, the_AT finder_NN1 ,_, if_CS he_PPHS1 appropriates_VVZ the_AT chattel_NN1 ,_, not_XX only_RR commits_VVZ the_AT tort_NN1 of_IO conversion_NN1 ,_, but_CCB is_VBZ also_RR guilty_JJ of_IO the_AT crime_NN1 of_IO theft_NN1 unless_CS he_PPHS1 appropriates_VVZ the_AT chattel_NN1 in_II the_AT belief_NN1 that_CST the_AT owner_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI discovered_VVN by_II taking_VVG reasonable_JJ steps._NNU 2_MC ._. 
The_AT occupier_NN1 of_IO the_AT land_NN1 on_II which_DDQ the_AT chattel_NN1 is_VBZ found_VVN may_VM in_II some_DD cases_NN2 have_VH0 a_AT1 title_NN1 superior_NN1 to_II that_DD1 of_IO the_AT finder_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 in_II Parker_NP1 v._II British_JJ Airways_NN2 Board_NN1 took_VVD the_AT opportunity_NN1 to_TO restate_VVI the_AT law_NN1 in_II a_AT1 comprehensive_JJ manner_NN1 and_CC bring_VV0 order_NN1 to_II an_AT1 area_NN1 in_II which_DDQ there_EX were_VBDR numerous_JJ conflicting_JJ precedents_NN2 ._. 
The_AT cases_NN2 in_II which_DDQ the_AT occupier_NN1 of_IO the_AT land_NN1 has_VHZ the_AT superior_JJ title_NN1 are_VBR (_( a_ZZ1 )_) Where_RRQ the_AT finder_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 trespasser_NN1 on_II the_AT land._NNU (_( b_ZZ1 )_) Where_RRQ the_AT property_NN1 is_VBZ attached_VVN to_II the_AT land_NN1 ,_, as_CSA in_II South_ND1 Staffordshire_NP1 Water_NN1 Co._NN1 v._II Sharman_NP1 where_RRQ gold_NN1 rings_NN2 were_VBDR found_VVN in_II mud_NN1 being_VBG cleared_VVN from_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE land._NNU (_( c_ZZ1 )_) Where_RRQ he_PPHS1 is_VBZ the_AT occupier_NN1 of_IO premises_NN2 in_II or_CC on_II which_DDQ the_AT chattels_NN2 (_( not_XX attached_VVN to_II the_AT premises_NN2 )_) are_VBR found_VVN and_CC ,_, before_CS the_AT finding_NN1 '_GE he_PPHS1 has_VHZ manifested_VVN an_AT1 intention_NN1 to_TO exercise_VVI control_NN1 over_II the_AT &lsqb;_( premises_NN2 &rsqb;_) and_CC the_AT things_NN2 which_DDQ may_VM be_VBI upon_II it_PPH1 or_CC in_II it_PPH1 '_VBZ ._. 
The_AT burden_NN1 of_IO proof_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 rests_VVZ upon_II the_AT occupier_NN1 ,_, though_CS in_II some_DD cases_NN2 the_AT matter_NN1 speaks_VVZ for_IF itself_PPX1 :_: '_" If_CSW a_AT1 bank_NN1 manager_NN1 saw_VVD fit_JJ to_TO show_VVI me_PPIO1 round_II a_AT1 vault_NN1 containing_VVG safe_JJ deposits_NN2 and_CC I_PPIS1 found_VVD a_AT1 gold_NN1 bracelet_NN1 on_II the_AT floor_NN1 ,_, I_PPIS1 should_VM have_VHI no_AT doubt_NN1 that_CST the_AT bank_NN1 had_VHD a_AT1 better_JJR title_NN1 than_CSN I_PPIS1 ,_, and_CC the_AT reason_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT manifest_JJ intention_NN1 to_TO exercise_VVI a_AT1 very_RG high_JJ degree_NN1 of_IO control_NN1 ._. 
At_II the_AT other_JJ extreme_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT park_NN1 to_II which_DDQ the_AT public_NN1 has_VHZ unrestricted_JJ access_NN1 during_II daylight_NN1 hours_NNT2 ._. 
During_II those_DD2 hours_NNT2 there_EX is_VBZ no_AT manifest_JJ intention_NN1 to_TO exercise_VVI any_DD such_DA control_NN1 ._. 
In_RL21 between_RL22 these_DD2 extremes_NN2 are_VBR the_AT forecourts_NN2 of_IO petrol_NN1 filling_NN1 stations_NN2 ,_, unfenced_JJ front_JJ gardens_NN2 of_IO private_JJ houses_NN2 ,_, the_AT public_JJ parts_NN2 of_IO shops_NN2 and_CC supermarkets_NN2 as_II part_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 almost_RR infinite_JJ variety_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 ,_, premises_NN2 and_CC circumstances_NN2 ._. 
'_GE In_II Parker_NP1 's_GE case_NN1 itself_PPX1 the_AT plaintiff_NN1 found_VVD a_AT1 gold_NN1 bracelet_NN1 on_II the_AT floor_NN1 of_IO the_AT executive_NN1 lounge_NN1 at_II Heathrow_NP1 Airport_NN1 and_CC was_VBDZ held_VVN entitled_VVN to_II it_PPH1 as_II21 against_II22 the_AT occupiers_NN2 ._. 
The_AT facts_NN2 that_CST they_PPHS2 restricted_VVD entry_NN1 to_II the_AT lounge_NN1 to_II certain_JJ classes_NN2 of_IO passengers_NN2 and_CC gave_VVD their_APPGE staff_NN instructions_NN2 as_II21 to_II22 what_DDQ to_TO do_VDI with_IW lost_JJ property_NN1 were_VBDR insufficient_JJ to_TO manifest_VVI the_AT intention_NN1 to_TO exercise_VVI the_AT requisite_JJ degree_NN1 of_IO control_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, open_VV0 to_II the_AT occupier_NN1 to_TO regulate_VVI the_AT right_NN1 to_II possession_NN1 of_IO lost_JJ property_NN1 by_II contract_NN1 with_IW the_AT entrant_NN1 ;_; it_PPH1 remains_VVZ to_TO be_VBI seen_VVN whether_CSW merely_RR putting_VVG up_RP notices_NN2 at_II the_AT entrance_NN1 declaring_VVG that_CST lost_VVD property_NN1 is_VBZ to_II vest_NN1 in_II the_AT occupier_NN1 will_VM be_VBI an_AT1 effective_JJ manifestation_NN1 of_IO the_AT intent_JJ to_TO control_VVI required_VVN by_II Parker_NP1 's_GE case_NN1 ._. 
DEFENCES_NN2 TO_II CONVERSION_NN1 Licence_NN1 and_CC the_AT exercise_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 right_NN1 of_IO distress_NN1 are_VBR two_MC common_JJ defences_NN2 to_II an_AT1 action_NN1 for_IF conversion_NN1 but_CCB these_DD2 have_VH0 already_RR been_VBN considered_VVN in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 trespass_NN1 to_TO land_VVI ._. 
It_PPH1 remains_VVZ to_TO examine_VVI the_AT following_JJ :_: Mistake_VV0 The_AT first_MD thing_NN1 to_TO be_VBI said_VVN about_II mistake_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST it_PPH1 does_VDZ not_XX usually_RR provide_VVI a_AT1 defence_NN1 ,_, for_IF liability_NN1 in_II conversion_NN1 is_VBZ strict_JJ :_: '_GE At_II common_JJ law_NN1 one_PN1 's_GE duty_NN1 to_II one_PN1 's_GE neighbour_NN1 who_PNQS is_VBZ the_AT owner_NN1 ..._... of_IO any_DD goods_NN2 is_VBZ to_TO refrain_VVI from_II doing_VDG any_DD voluntary_JJ act_NN1 in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 his_APPGE goods_NN2 which_DDQ is_VBZ a_AT1 usurpation_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE proprietary_JJ or_CC possessory_JJ rights_NN2 in_II them_PPHO2 ._. 
Subject_II21 to_II22 some_DD exceptions_NN2 ..._... it_PPH1 matters_VVZ not_XX that_CST the_AT doer_NN1 of_IO the_AT act_NN1 of_IO usurpation_NN1 did_VDD not_XX know_VVI ,_, and_CC could_VM not_XX by_II the_AT exercise_NN1 of_IO any_DD reasonable_JJ care_NN1 have_VH0 known_VVN of_IO his_APPGE neighbour_NN1 's_GE interest_NN1 in_II the_AT goods_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 duty_NN1 is_VBZ absolute_JJ ;_; he_PPHS1 acts_VVZ at_II his_APPGE peril_NN1 ._. 
'_" This_DD1 rule_NN1 was_VBDZ set_VVN solidly_RR into_II our_APPGE law_NN1 by_II the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP in_II Hollins_NP1 v._II Fowler_NP1 ._. 
B_ZZ1 fraudulently_RR obtained_VVN possession_NN1 of_IO cotton_NN1 from_II Fowler_NP1 ._. 
Hollins_NP1 ,_, a_AT1 cotton_NN1 broker_NN1 who_PNQS was_VBDZ ignorant_JJ of_IO the_AT fraud_NN1 ,_, bought_VVD it_PPH1 from_II B_ZZ1 and_CC resold_VVD it_PPH1 to_II another_DD1 person_NN1 ,_, receiving_VVG only_JJ broker_NN1 's_GE commission_NN1 ._. 
Hollins_NP1 was_VBDZ held_VVN liable_JJ to_II Fowler_NP1 for_IF the_AT conversion_NN1 of_IO the_AT cotton_NN1 ._. 
The_AT justification_NN1 for_IF such_DA a_AT1 rule_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX at_RR21 all_RR22 obvious_JJ ,_, particularly_RR when_CS in_II the_AT typical_JJ case_NN1 the_AT plaintiff_NN1 will_VM have_VHI handed_VVN his_APPGE goods_NN2 over_RP to_II a_AT1 rogue_NN1 on_II some_DD flimsy_JJ excuse_NN1 while_CS the_AT defendant_NN1 has_VHZ acquired_VVN the_AT goods_NN2 not_XX only_RR in_II good_JJ faith_NN1 but_CCB from_II some_DD reputable_JJ dealer_NN1 who_PNQS has_VHZ himself_PPX1 been_VBN deceived_VVN ._. 
One_MC1 solution_NN1 which_DDQ has_VHZ been_VBN suggested_VVN would_VM be_VBI to_TO apportion_VVI the_AT loss_NN1 between_II plaintiff_NN1 and_CC defendant_NN1 in_II such_DA a_AT1 case_NN1 but_CCB this_DD1 has_VHZ been_VBN rejected_VVN as_CSA impracticable_JJ by_II the_AT Law_NN1 Reform_NN1 Committee_NN1 ._. 
An_AT1 alternative_JJ approach_NN1 would_VM have_VHI been_VBN to_TO apply_VVI the_AT '_GE ready-made_JJ '_GE system_NN1 of_IO apportionment_NN1 in_II the_AT Law_NN1 Reform_NN1 (_( Contributory_JJ Negligence_NN1 )_) Act_NN1 1945_MC to_II liability_NN1 in_II conversion_NN1 ._. 
There_EX was_VBDZ some_DD authority_NN1 for_IF this_DD1 but_CCB the_AT matter_NN1 is_VBZ now_RT governed_VVN by_II section_NN1 11(1)_FO of_IO the_AT Torts_NP1 (_( Interference_NN1 with_IW Goods_NN2 )_) Act_NN1 1977_MC which_DDQ firmly_RR states_VVZ that_CST contributory_JJ negligence_NN1 is_VBZ no_AT defence_NN1 in_II proceedings_NN2 founded_VVN on_II conversion_NN1 ,_, or_CC on_II intentional_JJ trespass_NN1 to_II goods_NN2 ._. 
There_EX are_VBR ,_, however_RR ,_, many_DA2 exceptions_NN2 to_II the_AT rule_NN1 that_CST innocent_JJ mistake_NN1 is_VBZ no_AT defence_NN1 ._. 
The_AT first_MD group_NN1 consists_VVZ of_IO what_DDQ is_VBZ sometimes_RT known_VVN as_II the_AT exceptions_NN2 to_II the_AT rule_NN1 nemo_NN1 dat_DD1 quod_FW non_FU habet_NN1 whereby_RRQ a_AT1 bona_JJ21 fide_JJ22 purchaser_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 from_II A_ZZ1 commits_VVZ no_AT conversion_NN1 but_CCB actually_RR obtains_VVZ a_AT1 good_JJ title_NN1 to_II them_PPHO2 even_CS21 though_CS22 the_AT goods_NN2 really_RR belonged_VVD to_II B_ZZ1 and_CC B_ZZ1 never_RR intended_VVN to_TO allow_VVI A_ZZ1 to_TO sell_VVI them_PPHO2 ._. 
B_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 remedy_VV0 is_VBZ against_II A_AT1 alone_JJ ._. 
In_II such_DA cases_NN2 the_AT law_NN1 has_VHZ sought_VVN to_TO strike_VVI a_AT1 compromise_NN1 between_II the_AT competing_JJ principles_NN2 that_CST ownership_NN1 of_IO property_NN1 must_VM be_VBI protected_VVN and_CC that_DD1 speedy_JJ commerce_NN1 in_II goods_NN2 should_VM be_VBI facilitated_VVN ._. 
Details_NN2 of_IO this_DD1 very_RG large_JJ topic_NN1 must_VM be_VBI sought_VVN elsewhere_RL but_CCB the_AT principal_JJ exceptions_NN2 are_VBR briefly_RR as_CSA follows_VVZ :_: (_( 1_MC1 )_) Sale_NN1 in_II market_NN1 overt._NNU (_( 2_MC )_) Estoppel_VV0 by_II representation_NN1 or_CC by_II negligent_JJ conduct._NNU (_( 3_MC )_) Sale_NN1 under_II a_AT1 voidable_JJ title._NNU (_( 4_MC )_) Disposition_NN1 in_II the_AT ordinary_JJ course_NN1 of_IO business_NN1 by_II a_AT1 mercantile_JJ agent_NN1 in_II31 possession_II32 of_II33 the_AT goods_NN2 or_CC documents_NN2 of_IO title_NN1 with_IW the_AT owner_NN1 's_GE consent._NNU (_( 5_MC )_) Second_MD sale_NN1 by_II seller_NN1 in_II possession._NNU (_( 6_MC )_) Sale_NN1 by_II buyer_NN1 in_II possession._NNU (_( 7_MC )_) Private_JJ purchaser_NN1 of_IO vehicle_NN1 subject_II21 to_II22 a_AT1 hire-purchase_JJ agreement_NN1 ._. 
Another_DD1 apparent_JJ exception_NN1 to_II the_AT general_JJ rule_NN1 that_CST ignorance_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE rights_NN2 does_VDZ not_XX excuse_VVI was_VBDZ recognised_VVN by_II the_AT Privy_JJ Council_NN1 in_II Maynegrain_JJ Pty_NN1 ._. 
Ltd._JJ v._II Compajina_NP1 Bank_NN1 ._. 
The_AT defendants_NN2 were_VBDR bailees_NN2 of_IO barley_NN1 belonging_VVG to_II X_ZZ1 which_DDQ had_VHD been_VBN pledged_VVN to_II the_AT Y_NP1 Bank_NN1 by_II31 means_II32 of_II33 warehouse_NN1 receipts_NN2 ._. 
Unknown_JJ to_II the_AT defendants_NN2 Y_ZZ1 Bank_NN1 was_VBDZ acting_VVG as_II agent_NN1 for_IF Z_ZZ1 Bank_NN1 ,_, the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ._. 
On_II X_MC 's_GE order_NN1 and_CC with_IW Y_ZZ1 's_VBZ tacit_JJ consent_NN1 the_AT defendants_NN2 dispatched_VVD some_DD of_IO the_AT barley_NN1 to_II Kuwait_NP1 ._. 
This_DD1 was_VBDZ done_VDN without_IW Z_ZZ1 's_VBZ authority_NN1 ._. 
Z_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 action_VV0 for_IF conversion_NN1 failed_VVD :_: Y_ZZ1 Bank_NN1 was_VBDZ agent_NN1 for_IF an_AT1 undisclosed_JJ principal_NN1 ,_, Z_ZZ1 Bank_NN1 ,_, and_CC the_AT defendants_NN2 were_VBDR entitled_VVN to_TO act_VVI on_II Y_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 consent_VV0 ._. 
Though_CS consent_NN1 is_VBZ undeniably_RR a_AT1 defence_NN1 to_II an_AT1 action_NN1 for_IF conversion_NN1 ,_, there_EX are_VBR difficulties_NN2 in_II reconciling_VVG this_DD1 result_NN1 ,_, sensible_JJ as_CSA it_PPH1 may_VM seem_VVI ,_, with_IW general_JJ principles_NN2 of_IO agency_NN1 ,_, for_IF since_RR Y_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 act_VV0 was_VBDZ unauthorised_JJ it_PPH1 could_VM only_RR be_VBI effective_JJ if_CS done_VDN within_II an_AT1 ostensible_JJ authority_NN1 but_CCB that_DD1 doctrine_NN1 is_VBZ inapplicable_JJ to_II undisclosed_JJ agency_NN1 ._. 
The_AT act_NN1 of_IO shipping_VVG the_AT barley_NN1 in_II Maynegrain_NN1 was_VBDZ assumed_VVN to_TO be_VBI sufficient_JJ to_II amount_NN1 to_II conversion_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT position_NN1 is_VBZ different_JJ where_CS the_AT defendant_NN1 innocently_RR interferes_VVZ with_IW P_ZZ1 's_VBZ goods_NN2 whether_CSW upon_II his_APPGE own_DA initiative_NN1 or_CC upon_II the_AT instructions_NN2 of_IO another_DD1 ,_, when_CS the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE act_NN1 amounts_VVZ to_II nothing_PN1 more_DAR than_CSN transport_NN1 or_CC custody_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 ._. 
Blackburn_NP1 J._NP1 in_II Hollins_NP1 v._II Fowler_NP1 said_VVD that_CST :_: '_" ..._... one_PN1 who_PNQS deals_VVZ with_IW goods_NN2 at_II the_AT request_NN1 of_IO the_AT person_NN1 who_PNQS has_VHZ the_AT actual_JJ custody_NN1 of_IO them_PPHO2 ,_, in_II the_AT bona_JJ21 fide_JJ22 belief_NN1 that_CST the_AT custodian_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT true_JJ owner_NN1 ,_, should_VM be_VBI excused_VVN for_IF what_DDQ he_PPHS1 does_VDZ if_CSW the_AT act_NN1 is_VBZ of_IO such_DA a_AT1 nature_NN1 as_CSA would_VM be_VBI excused_VVN if_CS done_VDN by_II the_AT authority_NN1 of_IO the_AT person_NN1 in_II possession_NN1 ,_, if_CS he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 finder_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 or_CC entrusted_VVN with_IW their_APPGE custody_NN1 ...._... 
A_AT1 warehouseman_NN1 with_IW whom_PNQO goods_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN deposited_VVN is_VBZ guilty_JJ of_IO no_AT conversion_NN1 by_II keeping_VVG them_PPHO2 ,_, or_CC restoring_VVG them_PPHO2 to_II the_AT person_NN1 who_PNQS deposited_VVD them_PPHO2 with_IW him_PPHO1 ,_, though_CS that_DD1 person_NN1 turns_VVZ out_RP to_TO have_VHI had_VHN no_AT authority_NN1 from_II the_AT true_JJ owner_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Similarly_RR there_EX is_VBZ no_AT liability_NN1 if_CS a_AT1 railway_NN1 company_NN1 ,_, acting_VVG upon_II A_ZZ1 's_VBZ directions_NN2 ,_, carries_VVZ B_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 goods_NN2 ,_, honestly_RR believing_VVG that_CST A_ZZ1 has_VHZ B_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 authority_NN1 to_TO give_VVI such_DA directions_NN2 or_CC ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, where_CS a_AT1 finder_NN1 removes_VVZ them_PPHO2 to_II a_AT1 place_NN1 of_IO safety_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI confessed_VVN that_CST this_DD1 test_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 rather_RG artificial_JJ one_PN1 ._. 
We_PPIS2 have_VH0 first_MD to_TO pretend_VVI that_DD1 ,_, in_II the_AT event_NN1 of_IO A_ZZ1 wrongfully_RR directing_VVG an_AT1 innocent_JJ person_NN1 X_ZZ1 to_TO do_VDI something_PN1 to_II B_ZZ1 's_VBZ goods_NN2 ,_, A_ZZ1 is_VBZ in_II the_AT position_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 finder_NN1 or_CC custodian_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 ;_; and_CC then_RT we_PPIS2 must_VM ask_VVI ourselves_PPX2 ,_, '_" Would_VM X_MC 's_GE acts_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN excused_VVN if_CS these_DD2 were_VBDR the_AT facts_NN2 ?_? 
'_GE If_CS aye_UH ,_, then_RT X_ZZ1 committed_VVN no_AT conversion_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB allowing_VVG for_IF this_DD1 criticism_NN1 ,_, the_AT test_NN1 seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI workable_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 would_VM protect_VVI all_DB those_DD2 persons_NN2 in_II Hollins_NP1 v._II Fowler_NP1 who_PNQS merely_RR handled_VVD the_AT cotton_NN1 ministerially_RR ,_, such_II21 as_II22 a_AT1 carrier_NN1 who_PNQS merely_RR received_VVN and_CC delivered_VVN the_AT goods_NN2 in_II the_AT ordinary_JJ way_NN1 and_CC it_PPH1 would_VM not_XX save_VVI the_AT man_NN1 who_PNQS had_VHD sold_VVN the_AT cotton_NN1 to_II another_DD1 ._. 
A_AT1 solicitor_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 undischarged_JJ bankrupt_NN1 who_PNQS receives_VVZ after-acquired_JJ property_NN1 on_II31 behalf_II32 of_II33 his_APPGE client_NN1 and_CC transfers_VVZ it_PPH1 to_II another_DD1 agent_NN1 ,_, even_RR with_IW knowledge_NN1 that_CST that_DD1 agent_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN instructed_VVN to_TO sell_VVI ,_, is_VBZ not_XX liable_JJ for_IF conversion_NN1 at_II the_AT suit_NN1 of_IO the_AT trustee_NN1 in_II bankruptcy_NN1 ,_, for_IF the_AT solicitor_NN1 's_GE act_NN1 can_VM be_VBI described_VVN as_CSA ministerial_JJ within_II the_AT test_NN1 laid_VVN down_RP by_II Blackburn_NP1 J._NP1 Unfortunately_RR ,_, as_CSA Blackburn_NP1 J._NP1 himself_PPX1 admitted_VVD ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ doubtful_JJ how_RGQ far_RR it_PPH1 goes_VVZ ._. 
Does_VDZ it_PPH1 protect_VVI X_ZZ1 if_CS A_ZZ1 wrongfully_RR gives_VVZ him_PPHO1 B_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 wheat_NN1 to_TO grind_VVI into_II flour_NN1 and_CC he_PPHS1 innocently_RR does_VDZ so_RR ?_? 
The_AT learned_JJ judge_NN1 thought_VVD not_XX (_( and_CC indeed_RR a_AT1 mere_JJ finder_NN1 of_IO lost_JJ wheat_NN1 could_VM not_XX authorise_VVI the_AT grinding_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 )_) ,_, and_CC yet_RR he_PPHS1 felt_VVD that_CST it_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI hard_JJ to_TO hold_VVI X_ZZ1 liable_JJ ._. 
No_RR21 doubt_RR22 a_AT1 finder_NN1 of_IO perishable_JJ commodities_NN2 would_VM be_VBI justified_VVN in_II taking_VVG any_DD reasonable_JJ steps_NN2 to_TO preserve_VVI them_PPHO2 pending_II the_AT ascertainment_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE owner_NN1 ;_; e.g._REX he_PPHS1 would_VM not_XX commit_VVI conversion_NN1 by_II making_VVG jam_NN1 of_IO strawberries_NN2 if_CS that_DD1 were_VBDR the_AT only_JJ mode_NN1 of_IO preserving_VVG them_PPHO2 ._. 
But_CCB cases_NN2 like_II these_DD2 might_VM well_RR be_VBI based_VVN on_II the_AT general_JJ defence_NN1 of_IO necessity_NN1 ._. 
Retaking_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 This_DD1 is_VBZ a_AT1 species_NN of_IO self-help_NN1 ._. 
If_CS A_ZZ1 's_VBZ goods_NN2 are_VBR wrongfully_RR in_II B_ZZ1 's_VBZ possession_NN1 or_CC control_NN1 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ no_AT need_NN1 for_IF A_ZZ1 to_TO go_VVI to_II the_AT expense_NN1 of_IO litigation_NN1 to_TO recover_VVI them_PPHO2 ._. 
He_PPHS1 can_VM retake_VVI them_PPHO2 ,_, peaceably_RR if_CS he_PPHS1 can_VM ,_, and_CC in_II any_DD event_NN1 with_IW no_AT more_DAR force_NN1 than_CSN is_VBZ commensurate_JJ with_IW the_AT violence_NN1 of_IO B_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 resistance_NN1 ._. 
Indeed_RR ,_, retaking_VVG may_VM be_VBI his_APPGE only_JJ opportunity_NN1 of_IO doing_VDG himself_PPX1 justice_NN1 ,_, for_IF delay_NN1 may_VM mean_VVI destruction_NN1 or_CC conveying_VVG away_RL of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 by_II B_ZZ1 ,_, who_PNQS may_VM be_VBI quite_RG incapable_JJ of_IO paying_VVG their_APPGE value_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 should_VM be_VBI noted_VVN that_CST ,_, while_CS maiming_VVG or_CC wounding_VVG are_VBR not_XX justifiable_JJ for_IF simple_JJ recaption_NN1 of_IO property_NN1 ,_, yet_RR they_PPHS2 may_VM well_RR become_VVI justifiable_JJ for_IF another_DD1 reason_NN1 self-defence_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 may_VM occur_VVI where_RRQ B_ZZ1 ,_, in_II endeavouring_VVG wrongfully_RR to_TO resist_VVI A_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 attempt_VV0 to_TO recapture_VVI the_AT goods_NN2 ,_, commits_VVZ an_AT1 assault_NN1 upon_II A_ZZ1 and_CC so_RR justifies_VVZ A_ZZ1 in_II using_VVG violence_NN1 to_TO protect_VVI himself_PPX1 ._. 
And_CC if_CS B_ZZ1 's_VBZ violence_NN1 takes_VVZ the_AT form_NN1 of_IO assault_NN1 with_IW a_AT1 deadly_JJ weapon_NN1 ,_, A_ZZ1 may_VM even_RR inflict_VVI death_NN1 if_CS his_APPGE own_DA life_NN1 is_VBZ in_II peril_NN1 ._. 
But_CCB as_CSA the_AT test_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST A_ZZ1 must_VM use_VVI no_AT more_DAR force_NN1 than_CSN is_VBZ necessary_JJ ,_, and_CC as_CSA this_DD1 necessity_NN1 varies_VVZ with_IW the_AT facts_NN2 of_IO each_DD1 case_NN1 ,_, self-help_NN1 is_VBZ likely_JJ to_TO be_VBI just_RR as_RG dangerous_JJ a_AT1 remedy_NN1 here_RL as_CSA elsewhere_RL ._. 
Moreover_RR ,_, there_EX are_VBR other_JJ qualifications_NN2 of_IO A_ZZ1 's_VBZ right_JJ to_TO retake_VVI goods_NN2 ._. 
Qualifications_NN2 (_( a_ZZ1 )_) With_II31 respect_II32 to_II33 persons_NN2 ._. 
He_PPHS1 can_VM retake_VVI the_AT goods_NN2 not_XX only_RR from_II B_ZZ1 ,_, the_AT original_JJ tortfeasor_NN1 ,_, but_CCB even_RR from_II a_AT1 third_MD person_NN1 subject_II21 to_II22 the_AT apparent_JJ exceptions_NN2 which_DDQ arise_VV0 where_RRQ that_DD1 third_MD person_NN1 has_VHZ acquired_VVN a_AT1 good_JJ title_NN1 even_RR against_II A._NNU Such_DA exceptions_NN2 are_VBR only_RR apparent_JJ because_CS A_ZZ1 ,_, having_VHG lost_VVN his_APPGE right_NN1 to_II the_AT property_NN1 ,_, has_VHZ got_VVN nothing_PN1 which_DDQ he_PPHS1 can_VM retake._NNU (_( b_ZZ1 )_) With_II31 respect_II32 to_II33 place_NN1 ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ no_AT doubt_NN1 that_CST the_AT person_NN1 entitled_VVN to_II goods_NN2 may_VM enter_VVI and_CC take_VVI them_PPHO2 from_II the_AT land_NN1 of_IO the_AT first_MD taker_NN1 if_CS the_AT taker_NN1 himself_PPX1 wrongfully_RR put_VV0 them_PPHO2 there_RL ._. 
But_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ by_RR31 no_RR32 means_RR33 certain_JJ what_DDQ the_AT law_NN1 is_VBZ when_RRQ the_AT goods_NN2 are_VBR on_II the_AT premises_NN2 of_IO one_PN1 who_PNQS was_VBDZ not_XX responsible_JJ for_IF bringing_VVG them_PPHO2 there_RL and_CC who_PNQS has_VHZ committed_VVN no_AT tort_NN1 with_II31 respect_II32 to_II33 them_PPHO2 ._. 
The_AT only_JJ case_NN1 of_IO any_DD real_JJ assistance_NN1 is_VBZ Anthony_NP1 v._II Haney_NP1 ,_, and_CC even_RR there_RL the_AT dicta_NN2 are_VBR obiter_NN1 and_CC ,_, although_CS of_IO considerable_JJ weight_NN1 ,_, do_VD0 not_XX probe_VVI the_AT question_NN1 of_IO recaption_NN1 very_RG deeply_RR ._. 
Tindal_NP1 C.J._NP1 in_II that_DD1 case_NN1 gave_VVD as_CSA examples_NN2 of_IO permissible_JJ retaking_NN1 by_II A_ZZ1 from_II the_AT land_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 innocent_JJ person_NN1 ,_, C_ZZ1 ,_, (_( a_ZZ1 )_) where_RRQ the_AT goods_NN2 have_VH0 come_VVN there_RL by_II accident_NN1 ;_; (_( b_ZZ1 )_) where_CS they_PPHS2 have_VH0 been_VBN feloniously_RR taken_VVN by_II B_ZZ1 and_CC A_ZZ1 follows_VVZ them_PPHO2 to_TO C_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 land_VV0 ;_; (_( c_ZZ1 )_) where_RRQ C_ZZ1 refuses_VVZ to_TO deliver_VVI up_RP the_AT goods_NN2 or_CC to_TO make_VVI any_DD answer_NN1 to_II A_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 demand_VV0 for_IF them_PPHO2 ._. 
As_II21 to_II22 (_( a_ZZ1 )_) accident_NN1 ,_, the_AT Chief_JJ Justice_NN1 's_GE examples_NN2 were_VBDR A_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 fruit_NN falling_VVG upon_II C_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 land_VV0 ,_, or_CC A_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 tree_NN1 falling_VVG upon_II it_PPH1 by_II decay_NN1 or_CC being_VBG blown_VVN upon_II it_PPH1 by_II the_AT wind_NN1 ._. 
By_II '_GE accident_NN1 '_GE it_PPH1 seems_VVZ clear_RR that_DD1 '_VBZ inevitable_JJ accident_NN1 '_GE was_VBDZ meant_VVN ._. 
Negligent_JJ or_CC intentional_JJ placing_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 on_II the_AT land_NN1 of_IO another_DD1 is_VBZ a_AT1 tort_NN1 ,_, e.g._REX where_CS a_AT1 cricket_NN1 ball_NN1 is_VBZ hit_VVN by_II any_DD ordinary_JJ stroke_NN1 out_II21 of_II22 the_AT ground_NN1 into_II another_DD1 person_NN1 's_GE premises_NN2 or_CC onto_II the_AT highway_NN1 ._. 
The_AT occupier_NN1 of_IO the_AT premises_NN2 ,_, far_RR from_II being_VBG put_VVN under_II any_DD obligation_NN1 to_TO allow_VVI the_AT owner_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 to_TO enter_VVI and_CC retake_VVI them_PPHO2 ,_, is_VBZ entitled_VVN to_TO distrain_VVI them_PPHO2 damage_VV0 feasant_JJ until_CS the_AT owner_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 pays_VVZ for_IF such_DA damage_NN1 as_CSA they_PPHS2 have_VH0 done_VDN ._. 
Where_RRQ ,_, however_RR ,_, the_AT entry_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 was_VBDZ inevitable_JJ ,_, not_XX only_RR is_VBZ there_EX no_AT liability_NN1 for_IF trespass_NN1 on_II41 the_II42 part_II43 of_II44 their_APPGE owner_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT view_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 can_VM retake_VVI them_PPHO2 seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI right_JJ ,_, even_CS21 if_CS22 there_EX is_VBZ no_AT direct_JJ decision_NN1 to_II that_DD1 effect_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI hard_JJ that_CST the_AT occupier_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 should_VM have_VHI no_AT right_NN1 to_II compensation_NN1 for_IF harm_NN1 done_VDN by_II the_AT fall_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 large_JJ thing_NN1 ,_, like_II a_AT1 tree_NN1 ,_, on_II his_APPGE premises_NN2 ,_, but_CCB his_APPGE plight_NN1 is_VBZ no_AT worse_JJR than_CSN in_II any_DD other_JJ instance_NN1 of_IO inevitable_JJ accident_NN1 ._. 
As_II21 to_II22 (_( b_ZZ1 )_) ,_, the_AT rule_NN1 that_CST if_CS A_ZZ1 's_VBZ goods_NN2 are_VBR feloniously_RR taken_VVN by_II B_ZZ1 ,_, A_ZZ1 may_VM follow_VVI them_PPHO2 onto_II C_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 land_VV0 rests_NN2 upon_II a_AT1 passage_NN1 in_II Blackstone_NP1 which_DDQ commended_VVD itself_PPX1 to_II two_MC of_IO the_AT judges_NN2 in_II Anthony_NP1 v._II Haney_NP1 ._. 
The_AT distinction_NN1 between_II felonies_NN2 and_CC misdemeanours_NN2 no_RR21 longer_RR22 exists_VVZ but_CCB there_EX seems_VVZ no_AT reason_NN1 why_RRQ the_AT rule_NN1 ,_, if_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 rule_NN1 at_RR21 all_RR22 ,_, should_VM not_XX apply_VVI wherever_RRQV B_ZZ1 's_VBZ taking_VVG is_VBZ criminal_JJ ._. 
As_II21 to_II22 (_( c_ZZ1 )_) ,_, Tindal_NP1 C.J._NP1 thought_VVD that_CST where_CS C_NP1 refused_VVD to_TO deliver_VVI up_RP the_AT goods_NN2 or_CC to_TO answer_VVI A_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 demand_VV0 ,_, '_GE a_AT1 jury_NN1 might_VM be_VBI induced_VVN to_TO presume_VVI a_AT1 conversion_NN1 from_II such_DA silence_NN1 ,_, or_CC at_II any_DD rate_NN1 the_AT owner_NN1 might_VM in_II such_DA case_NN1 enter_VV0 and_CC take_VV0 his_APPGE property_NN1 subject_II21 to_II22 the_AT payment_NN1 of_IO any_DD damage_NN1 he_PPHS1 might_VM commit_VVI ._. 
'_GE The_AT learned_JJ Chief_JJ Justice_NN1 had_VHD already_RR dealt_VVN with_IW inevitable_JJ accident_NN1 ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ presumably_RR contemplating_VVG a_AT1 case_NN1 in_II which_DDQ the_AT presence_NN1 of_IO A_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 goods_NN2 on_II C_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 land_VV0 was_VBDZ due_JJ ,_, not_XX to_II that_DD1 ,_, but_CCB to_II the_AT tort_NN1 of_IO A_ZZ1 or_CC of_IO someone_PN1 else_RR for_IF whose_DDQGE act_NN1 A_ZZ1 was_VBDZ in_II some_DD way_NN1 or_CC other_JJ responsible_JJ ._. 
If_CS so_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ doubtful_JJ whether_CSW his_APPGE dictum_NN1 about_II A_ZZ1 's_VBZ right_JJ to_TO retake_VVI the_AT goods_NN2 is_VBZ law_NN1 ._. 
Later_JJR dicta_NN2 leave_VV0 it_PPH1 quite_RG uncertain_JJ whether_CSW A_ZZ1 can_VM do_VDI so_RR where_CS C_ZZ1 's_VBZ refusal_NN1 to_TO deliver_VVI up_RP the_AT goods_NN2 amounts_VVZ to_II conversion_NN1 ,_, and_CC they_PPHS2 are_VBR decidedly_RR against_II such_DA a_AT1 view_NN1 where_CS C_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 conduct_VV0 in_II obstructing_VVG A_ZZ1 's_VBZ entry_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX ;_; and_CC this_DD1 ,_, too_RR ,_, even_RR where_CS the_AT goods_NN2 come_VV0 on_II C_ZZ1 's_VBZ premises_NN2 without_IW any_DD tort_NN1 on_II A_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 part_VV0 ._. 
Thus_RR in_II British_JJ Economical_JJ Lamp_NN1 Co_NN1 ._. 
Ltd._JJ v._II Empire_NN1 Mile_NNU1 End_NN1 Ltd._JJ ,_, C_ZZ1 let_VV0 his_APPGE theatre_NN1 to_II B._NP1 B_NP1 did_VDD not_XX pay_VVI his_APPGE rent_NN1 ,_, so_CS C_NP1 re-entered_VVD and_CC thus_RR terminated_VVD the_AT lease_NN1 ._. 
B_NP1 left_VVD in_II the_AT theatre_NN1 some_DD detachable_JJ electric_JJ lamps_NN2 which_DDQ he_PPHS1 had_VHD hired_VVN from_II A._NP1 A_ZZ1 sued_VVD C_NP1 for_IF detinue_NN1 of_IO the_AT lamps_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ held_VVN that_CST the_AT facts_NN2 did_VDD not_XX show_VVI any_DD detinue_NN1 and_CC it_PPH1 was_VBDZ also_RR said_VVN that_CST C_NP1 had_VHD done_VDN no_AT wrong_JJ by_II not_XX allowing_VVG A_ZZ1 to_TO enter_VVI and_CC remove_VVI them_PPHO2 ._. 
Note_VV0 that_CST A_ZZ1 had_VHD certainly_RR committed_VVN no_AT tort_NN1 to_II C_NP1 in_II leaving_VVG the_AT lamps_NN2 there_RL ._. 
Thus_RR it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX easy_JJ to_TO predict_VVI what_DDQ the_AT law_NN1 is_VBZ either_RR where_CS the_AT occupier_NN1 of_IO the_AT land_NN1 commits_VVZ conversion_NN1 by_II his_APPGE refusal_NN1 or_CC where_RRQ he_PPHS1 is_VBZ blameless_JJ ._. 
It_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI argued_VVN on_II the_AT one_MC1 hand_NN1 that_CST where_CS the_AT owner_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 was_VBDZ under_II no_AT tortious_JJ liability_NN1 for_IF their_APPGE appearance_NN1 on_II the_AT occupier_NN1 's_GE land_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 ought_VMK to_TO be_VBI able_JK to_TO retake_VVI them_PPHO2 in_II any_DD event_NN1 ,_, provided_CS he_PPHS1 does_VDZ no_AT injury_NN1 to_II the_AT premises_NN2 or_CC gives_VVZ adequate_JJ security_NN1 for_IF making_VVG good_RR any_DD unavoidable_JJ injury_NN1 ._. 
On_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI urged_VVN that_DD1 self-help_NN1 ought_VMK to_TO be_VBI strictly_RR limited_VVN even_RR against_II a_AT1 wrongdoer_NN1 and_CC forbidden_VVN altogether_RR against_II one_PN1 who_PNQS is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 wrongdoer_NN1 ,_, except_CS21 that_CS22 retaking_VVG might_VM be_VBI permitted_VVN in_II circumstances_NN2 of_IO inevitable_JJ accident_NN1 or_CC of_IO necessity_NN1 (_( e.g._REX where_CS the_AT goods_NN2 are_VBR perishable_JJ or_CC are_VBR doing_VDG considerable_JJ damage_NN1 to_II the_AT land_NN1 and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ impossible_JJ to_TO communicate_VVI speedily_RR enough_RR with_IW the_AT occupier_NN1 or_CC his_APPGE agent_NN1 )_) ._. 
It_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN held_VVN that_CST the_AT owner_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 swarm_NN1 of_IO bees_NN2 has_VHZ no_AT right_NN1 to_TO follow_VVI it_PPH1 onto_II another_DD1 man_NN1 's_GE land_NN1 ,_, but_CCB this_DD1 is_VBZ of_IO no_AT general_JJ assistance_NN1 for_IF ,_, once_CS the_AT bees_NN2 get_VV0 onto_II that_DD1 land_NN1 they_PPHS2 become_VV0 again_RT ferae_NN2 naturae_NN2 and_CC the_AT property_NN1 of_IO no_PN121 one_PN122 ._. 
Tindal_NP1 C.J._NP1 did_VDD not_XX profess_VVI to_TO make_VVI an_AT1 exhaustive_JJ list_NN1 of_IO the_AT cases_NN2 in_II which_DDQ recaption_NN1 is_VBZ permissible_JJ ,_, but_CCB be_VBI the_AT extent_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 justification_NN1 of_IO trespass_NN1 and_CC conversion_NN1 what_DDQ it_PPH1 may_VM ,_, one_MC1 thing_NN1 is_VBZ clear_JJ ._. 
The_AT retaker_NN1 ,_, before_CS he_PPHS1 attempts_VVZ to_TO retake_VVI ,_, must_VM ,_, if_CS required_VVN to_TO do_VDI so_RR ,_, explain_VV0 to_II the_AT occupier_NN1 of_IO the_AT land_NN1 or_CC the_AT person_NN1 in_II31 possession_II32 of_II33 the_AT goods_NN2 the_AT facts_NN2 upon_II which_DDQ his_APPGE proposed_JJ action_NN1 is_VBZ based_VVN ._. 
A_AT1 mere_JJ allegation_NN1 that_CST the_AT goods_NN2 are_VBR his_PPGE ,_, without_IW any_DD attempt_NN1 to_TO show_VVI how_RRQ they_PPHS2 came_VVD on_II the_AT premises_NN2 ,_, will_VM not_XX do_VDI ,_, for_IF '_" to_TO allow_VVI such_DA a_AT1 statement_NN1 to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 justification_NN1 for_IF entering_VVG the_AT soil_NN1 of_IO another_DD1 ,_, would_VM be_VBI opening_VVG too_RG wide_JJ a_AT1 door_NN1 to_II parties_NN2 to_TO attempt_VVI righting_VVG themselves_PPX2 without_IW resorting_VVG to_II law_NN1 ,_, and_CC would_VM necessarily_RR tend_VVI to_TO breach_VVI of_IO the_AT peace_NN1 ._. 
'_GE MEASURE_NN1 OF_IO DAMAGES_NN2 FOR_IF INTERFERENCE_NN1 WITH_IW GOODS_NN2 Defendant_NN1 not_XX in_II possession_NN1 Where_CS the_AT defendant_NN1 is_VBZ no_RR21 longer_RR22 in_II31 possession_II32 of_II33 the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE goods_NN2 because_CS ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, he_PPHS1 has_VHZ destroyed_VVN them_PPHO2 or_CC disposed_JJ of_IO them_PPHO2 ,_, the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE remedy_NN1 is_VBZ judgment_NN1 for_IF the_AT value_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 together_RL with_IW any_DD consequential_JJ loss_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ not_XX too_RG remote_JJ ._. 
After_CS some_DD initial_JJ hesitation_NN1 it_PPH1 now_RT seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI generally_RR accepted_VVN that_CST the_AT value_NN1 should_VM be_VBI assessed_VVN at_II the_AT date_NN1 of_IO the_AT conversion_NN1 (_( though_CS it_PPH1 should_VM be_VBI noted_VVN that_CST in_II other_JJ contexts_NN2 the_AT courts_NN2 show_VV0 some_DD resistance_NN1 to_II any_DD universal_JJ rule_NN1 that_CST damages_NN2 are_VBR to_TO be_VBI assessed_VVN at_II the_AT date_NN1 of_IO the_AT wrong_JJ )_) ._. 
The_AT recovery_NN1 of_IO consequential_JJ loss_NN1 is_VBZ illustrated_VVN by_II Bodley_NP1 v._II Reynolds_NP1 ,_, where_CS a_AT1 carpenter_NN1 's_GE tools_NN2 were_VBDR converted_VVN and_CC he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ thereby_RR prevented_VVN from_II working._NNU 10_MC above_II the_AT value_NN1 of_IO the_AT tools_NN2 was_VBDZ awarded_VVN as_CSA special_JJ damage_NN1 ._. 
Generally_RR ,_, however_RR ,_, loss_NN1 incurred_VVN as_II a_AT1 result_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE inability_NN1 to_TO deliver_VVI the_AT goods_NN2 under_II a_AT1 lucrative_JJ contract_NN1 of_IO sale_NN1 is_VBZ too_RG remote_JJ unless_CS the_AT defendant_NN1 is_VBZ aware_JJ of_IO the_AT contract_NN1 ._. 
There_EX are_VBR many_DA2 cases_NN2 of_IO conversion_NN1 of_IO documents_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR intrinsically_RR valueless_JJ but_CCB have_VH0 a_AT1 value_NN1 in_II that_DD1 their_APPGE possession_NN1 confers_VVZ rights_NN2 on_II the_AT holder_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ clear_JJ that_CST the_AT measure_NN1 of_IO damages_NN2 for_IF the_AT conversion_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 negotiable_JJ instrument_NN1 is_VBZ prima_RR21 facie_RR22 the_AT face_NN1 value_NN1 ,_, not_XX the_AT value_NN1 as_CSA paper_NN1 but_CCB it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN held_VVN that_CST this_DD1 principle_NN1 is_VBZ inapplicable_JJ to_II non-negotiable_JJ documents_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 holiday_NN1 credit_NN1 stamps_NN2 ._. 
With_IW respect_NN1 ,_, this_DD1 approach_NN1 seems_VVZ curiously_RR narrow_JJ and_CC may_VM be_VBI inconsistent_JJ with_IW other_JJ authorities_NN2 ._. 
Defendant_NN1 detaining_VVG goods_NN2 The_AT only_JJ remedy_NN1 for_IF conversion_NN1 at_II common_JJ law_NN1 was_VBDZ the_AT purely_RR personal_JJ one_MC1 of_IO damages_NN2 ._. 
However_RR ,_, when_CS the_AT defendant_NN1 was_VBDZ in_II31 possession_II32 of_II33 the_AT goods_NN2 and_CC refused_VVD to_TO deliver_VVI them_PPHO2 up_RP on_II demand_NN1 his_APPGE act_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX only_RR conversion_NN1 but_CCB also_RR detinue_VV0 and_CC the_AT form_NN1 of_IO judgment_NN1 in_II detinue_NN1 might_VM include_VVI an_AT1 order_NN1 for_IF the_AT delivery_NN1 up_RP of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 ._. 
Detinue_NN1 has_VHZ now_RT been_VBN abolished_VVN but_CCB the_AT remedies_NN2 for_IF conversion_NN1 where_RRQ goods_NN2 are_VBR detained_VVN by_II the_AT defendant_NN1 are_VBR now_RT found_VVN in_II section_NN1 3_MC of_IO the_AT Torts_NP1 (_( Interference_NN1 with_IW Goods_NN2 )_) Act_NN1 1977_MC ,_, which_DDQ is_VBZ modelled_VVN on_II the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 remedies_VVZ available_JJ for_IF detinue_NN1 ._. 
The_AT relief_NN1 available_JJ is_VBZ in_II one_MC1 of_IO the_AT following_JJ forms_NN2 :_: (_( a_ZZ1 )_) an_AT1 order_NN1 for_IF the_AT delivery_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 ,_, and_CC for_IF payment_NN1 of_IO any_DD consequential_JJ damages_NN2 ,_, or_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) an_AT1 order_NN1 for_IF delivery_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 ,_, but_CCB giving_VVG the_AT defendant_NN1 the_AT alternative_NN1 of_IO paying_VVG damages_NN2 by_II reference_NN1 to_II the_AT value_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 ,_, together_RL in_II either_DD1 alternative_NN1 with_IW payment_NN1 of_IO any_DD consequential_JJ damages_NN2 ,_, or_CC (_( c_ZZ1 )_) damages_NN2 ._. 
Relief_NN1 under_II (_( a_ZZ1 )_) is_VBZ at_II the_AT discretion_NN1 of_IO the_AT court_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT plaintiff_NN1 may_VM choose_VVI between_II (_( b_ZZ1 )_) and_CC (_( c_ZZ1 )_) ._. 
If_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 chooses_VVZ (_( c_ZZ1 )_) ,_, the_AT defendant_NN1 can_VM not_XX satisfy_VVI the_AT judgment_NN1 by_II returning_VVG the_AT goods_NN2 ._. 
Improvement_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 The_AT problem_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 converter_NN1 improving_VVG goods_NN2 is_VBZ illustrated_VVN by_II Munro_NP1 v._II Willmott_NP1 ._. 
The_AT plaintiff_NN1 was_VBDZ given_VVN a_AT1 temporary_JJ licence_NN1 to_TO leave_VVI her_APPGE car_NN1 in_II the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE yard_NN1 ._. 
After_CS the_AT car_NN1 had_VHD been_VBN there_RL for_IF some_DD years_NNT2 the_AT defendant_NN1 wished_VVD to_TO convert_VVI the_AT yard_NN1 into_II a_AT1 garage_NN1 but_CCB was_VBDZ unable_JK to_TO communicate_VVI with_IW the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ._. 
Accordingly_RR ,_, he_PPHS1 '_" did_VDD up_II '_GE the_AT car_NN1 (_( then_RT worth_II 20_MC )_) at_II a_AT1 cost_NN1 of_IO 85_MC and_CC then_RT sold_VVD it_PPH1 for_IF 100_MC ._. 
In_II proceedings_NN2 for_IF conversion_NN1 ,_, Lynskey_NP1 J._NP1 felt_VVD obliged_VVN to_TO assess_VVI the_AT value_NN1 of_IO the_AT car_NN1 at_II the_AT date_NN1 of_IO judgment_NN1 (_( 120_MC )_) but_CCB he_PPHS1 gave_VVD credit_NN1 for_IF the_AT sum_NN1 expended_VVN by_II the_AT defendant_NN1 ,_, leaving_VVG 35_MC as_II the_AT damages_NN2 recoverable_JJ by_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ._. 
The_AT matter_NN1 is_VBZ now_RT governed_VVN by_II section_NN1 6_MC of_IO the_AT Torts_NP1 (_( Interference_NN1 with_IW Goods_NN2 )_) Act_NN1 1977_MC which_DDQ provides_VVZ that_CST if_CS the_AT improver_NN1 acted_VVN in_II the_AT mistaken_JJ but_CCB honest_JJ belief_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 had_VHD a_AT1 good_JJ title_NN1 ,_, an_AT1 allowance_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO be_VBI made_VVN for_IF the_AT extent_NN1 to_II which_DDQ the_AT value_NN1 of_IO the_AT goods_NN2 at_II the_AT time_NNT1 at_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 falls_VVZ to_TO be_VBI assessed_VVN ,_, is_VBZ attributable_JJ to_II the_AT improvement_NN1 ._. 
The_AT requirement_NN1 of_IO good_JJ faith_NN1 would_VM seem_VVI to_TO make_VVI the_AT law_NN1 somewhat_RR narrower_JJR than_CSN it_PPH1 was_VBDZ before_RT ._. 
Effect_NN1 of_IO judgment_NN1 Where_RRQ damages_NN2 for_IF wrongful_JJ interference_NN1 are_VBR assessed_VVN on_II the_AT basis_NN1 that_CST the_AT plaintiff_NN1 is_VBZ being_VBG compensated_VVN for_IF the_AT whole_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE interest_NN1 in_II the_AT goods_NN2 (_( including_II a_AT1 case_NN1 where_RRQ judgment_NN1 is_VBZ subject_II21 to_II22 a_AT1 reduction_NN1 for_IF contributory_JJ negligence_NN1 )_) payment_NN1 of_IO the_AT damages_NN2 or_CC of_IO any_DD settlement_NN1 in_RR21 full_RR22 extinguishes_VVZ the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE title_NN1 to_II that_DD1 interest_NN1 in_II the_AT goods_NN2 ._. 
Until_CS payment_NN1 of_IO the_AT damages_NN2 ,_, however_RR ,_, the_AT plaintiff_NN1 retains_VVZ his_APPGE property_NN1 in_II the_AT goods_NN2 and_CC may_VM exercise_VVI all_DB his_APPGE rights_NN2 as_CSA owner_NN1 even_RR after_II judgment_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN given_VVN in_II his_APPGE favour_NN1 ._. 
In_II Ellis_NP1 v._II John_NP1 Stenning_NP1 &amp;_CC Son_NN1 A_ZZ1 sold_JJ land_NN1 to_II B_ZZ1 ,_, reserving_VVG to_II himself_PPX1 the_AT right_NN1 to_TO cut_VVI and_CC sell_VVI the_AT uncut_JJ timber_NN1 on_II the_AT land_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 then_RT sold_VVD the_AT timber_NN1 to_II E._NP1 B_ZZ1 wrongfully_RR removed_VVN some_DD of_IO the_AT timber_NN1 and_CC E_ZZ1 obtained_VVN judgment_NN1 against_II him_PPHO1 for_IF conversion_NN1 but_CCB took_VVD no_AT steps_NN2 to_TO enforce_VVI his_APPGE judgment_NN1 ,_, because_CS B_ZZ1 was_VBDZ insolvent_JJ ._. 
B_NP1 sold_VVD the_AT timber_NN1 to_II S._NP1 E_ZZ1 then_RT sued_VVD S_ZZ1 for_IF conversion_NN1 of_IO the_AT timber_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ held_VVN that_CST S_ZZ1 was_VBDZ liable_JJ because_CS ,_, the_AT judgment_NN1 against_II B_NP1 not_XX having_VHG been_VBN satisfied_VVN ,_, title_NN1 to_II the_AT timber_NN1 remained_VVD with_IW E._NP1 OTHER_JJ CAUSES_NN2 OF_IO ACTION_NN1 FOR_IF WRONGFUL_JJ INTERFERENCE_NN1 WITH_IW GOODS_NN2 Replevin_NP1 As_CSA we_PPIS2 have_VH0 seen_VVN ,_, replevin_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 ancient_JJ cause_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ theoretically_RR applicable_JJ to_II any_DD trespassory_JJ taking_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 but_CCB in_II practice_NN1 is_VBZ limited_VVN to_II taking_VVG by_II wrongful_JJ distress_NN1 ._. 
The_AT modern_JJ procedure_NN1 in_II the_AT action_NN1 is_VBZ for_IF the_AT plaintiff_NN1 to_TO apply_VVI to_II the_AT registrar_NN1 of_IO the_AT county_NN1 court_NN1 ,_, who_PNQS will_VM see_VVI that_CST the_AT goods_NN2 alleged_VVN to_TO have_VHI been_VBN wrongfully_RR taken_VVN are_VBR restored_VVN to_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 on_II his_APPGE giving_VVG security_NN1 to_TO prosecute_VVI an_AT1 action_NN1 of_IO replevin_NN1 in_II the_AT county_NN1 court_NN1 or_CC in_II the_AT High_JJ Court_NN1 ._. 
The_AT plaintiff_NN1 thus_RR recovers_VVZ his_APPGE goods_NN2 without_IW having_VHG to_TO await_VVI the_AT outcome_NN1 of_IO the_AT action_NN1 while_CS the_AT defendant_NN1 is_VBZ protected_VVN by_II the_AT security_NN1 given_VVN by_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ._. 
Replevin_NN1 is_VBZ therefore_RR now_RT a_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO interlocutory_JJ relief_NN1 ._. 
Section_NN1 4_MC of_IO the_AT Torts_NP1 (_( Interference_NN1 with_IW Goods_NN2 )_) Act_NN1 1977_MC adds_VVZ a_AT1 new_JJ and_CC more_RGR important_JJ form_NN1 of_IO interlocutory_JJ relief_NN1 ,_, available_JJ in_II the_AT county_NN1 court_NN1 and_CC High_JJ Court_NN1 ,_, whereby_RRQ goods_NN2 the_AT subject_NN1 of_IO present_NN1 or_CC future_JJ proceedings_NN2 for_IF wrongful_JJ interference_NN1 may_VM be_VBI ordered_VVN to_TO be_VBI delivered_VVN up_II21 to_II22 the_AT claimant_NN1 ,_, or_CC a_AT1 person_NN1 appointed_VVN by_II the_AT court_NN1 ,_, on_II such_DA terms_NN2 and_CC conditions_NN2 as_CSA may_VM be_VBI specified_VVN ._. 
The_AT procedure_NN1 is_VBZ particularly_RR apt_JJ if_CS there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 risk_NN1 that_CST the_AT goods_NN2 may_VM be_VBI destroyed_VVN or_CC disposed_JJ of_IO before_II trial_NN1 of_IO the_AT action_NN1 but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX confined_VVN to_II such_DA situations_NN2 ._. 
An_AT1 order_NN1 was_VBDZ made_VVN under_II it_PPH1 in_II Howard_NP1 E._NP1 Perry_NP1 &amp;_CC Co_NP1 ._. 
Ltd._JJ v._II British_JJ Railways_NN2 Board_VV0 even_CS21 though_CS22 the_AT goods_NN2 were_VBDR in_II no_AT danger_NN1 and_CC the_AT defendants_NN2 recognised_VVD the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 '_GE title_NN1 :_: the_AT shortage_NN1 of_IO stock_NN1 caused_VVN by_II industrial_JJ action_NN1 was_VBDZ acute_JJ and_CC damages_NN2 would_VM not_XX adequately_RR compensate_VVI the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 for_IF the_AT injury_NN1 to_II their_APPGE business_NN1 ._. 
Distress_NN1 and_CC related_JJ matters_NN2 Distress_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 remedy_NN1 given_VVN by_II the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 ,_, whereby_RRQ a_AT1 party_NN1 in_II certain_JJ cases_NN2 is_VBZ entitled_VVN to_TO enforce_VVI a_AT1 right_NN1 or_CC obtain_VV0 redress_NN1 for_IF a_AT1 wrong_JJ in_II a_AT1 summary_NN1 manner_NN1 ,_, by_II seizing_JJ chattels_NN2 and_CC retaining_VVG them_PPHO2 as_II a_AT1 pledge_NN1 until_CS satisfaction_NN1 is_VBZ obtained_VVN ._. 
Illegal_JJ ,_, irregular_JJ and_CC excessive_JJ distress_NN1 are_VBR actionable_JJ at_II the_AT suit_NN1 of_IO the_AT owner_NN1 of_IO the_AT chattels_NN2 but_CCB interference_NN1 by_II him_PPHO1 with_IW a_AT1 distress_NN1 may_VM in_II its_APPGE turn_NN1 be_VBI actionable_JJ as_CSA rescous_JJ or_CC pound_NN1 breach_NN1 ._. 
INTERFERENCE_NN1 WITH_IW CONTRACT_NN1 OR_CC BUSINESS_NN1 IN_II this_DD1 chapter_NN1 we_PPIS2 are_VBR concerned_JJ with_IW a_AT1 group_NN1 of_IO torts_NN2 the_AT function_NN1 of_IO which_DDQ is_VBZ to_TO protect_VVI some_DD of_IO a_AT1 person_NN1 's_GE intangible_JJ interests_NN2 those_DD2 which_DDQ may_VM loosely_RR be_VBI called_VVN his_APPGE business_NN1 interests_NN2 from_II unlawful_JJ interference_NN1 ._. 
As_CSA we_PPIS2 have_VH0 already_RR seen_VVN ,_, the_AT law_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN less_RGR ready_JJ to_TO protect_VVI these_DD2 interests_NN2 from_II negligently_RR inflicted_VVN harm_NN1 than_CSN it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN to_TO protect_VVI person_NN1 and_CC tangible_JJ property_NN1 ,_, but_CCB we_PPIS2 are_VBR now_RT concerned_JJ only_RR with_IW liability_NN1 for_IF intended_JJ harm_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX possible_JJ ,_, however_RR ,_, to_TO say_VVI simply_RR that_CST whenever_RRQV one_MC1 man_NN1 intentionally_RR causes_VVZ harm_NN1 to_II another_DD1 that_DD1 is_VBZ a_AT1 tort_NN1 for_IF ,_, as_CSA we_PPIS2 have_VH0 also_RR seen_VVN ,_, the_AT mere_JJ fact_NN1 that_CST my_APPGE motive_NN1 in_II performing_VVG an_AT1 otherwise_RR lawful_JJ act_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO cause_VVI damage_NN1 to_II another_DD1 will_VM not_XX of_IO itself_PPX1 make_VV0 the_AT act_NN1 tortious_JJ ._. 
Provided_CS we_PPIS2 give_VV0 a_AT1 narrow_JJ meaning_NN1 to_II '_GE intention_NN1 '_GE the_AT law_NN1 may_VM well_RR for_IF practical_JJ purposes_NN2 come_VV0 close_RR to_II the_AT proposition_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ tortious_JJ intentionally_RR to_TO cause_VVI damage_NN1 by_II any_DD unlawful_JJ act_NN1 ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 has_VHZ developed_VVN by_II way_NN1 of_IO distinct_JJ ,_, nominate_JJ torts_NN2 and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ necessary_JJ to_TO retain_VVI that_DD1 division_NN1 for_IF the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO exposition_NN1 ._. 
Three_MC further_RRR prefatory_JJ remarks_NN2 are_VBR necessary_JJ ._. 
First_MD ,_, a_AT1 great_JJ many_DA2 of_IO the_AT cases_NN2 in_II this_DD1 area_NN1 of_IO the_AT law_NN1 are_VBR concerned_JJ with_IW industrial_JJ strife_NN1 of_IO one_MC1 kind_NN1 or_CC another_DD1 and_CC where_CS this_DD1 is_VBZ so_RR the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN excluded_VVN or_CC modified_VVN since_II 1906_MC by_II statutory_JJ immunities_NN2 granted_VVN to_II persons_NN2 acting_VVG in_II a_AT1 '_GE trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 ._. 
'_GE The_AT scope_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 immunity_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN changed_VVN no_AT less_DAR than_CSN six_MC times_NNT2 in_II the_AT last_MD 20_MC years_NNT2 ._. 
Since_CS the_AT legislation_NN1 assumes_VVZ the_AT existence_NN1 of_IO the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 background_NN1 we_PPIS2 must_VM first_MD endeavour_VVI to_TO ascertain_VVI the_AT general_JJ principles_NN2 governing_VVG this_DD1 area_NN1 of_IO tort_NN1 and_CC then_RT see_VV0 shortly_RR how_RRQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ affected_VVN when_CS there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 ._. 
Secondly_RR ,_, the_AT torts_NN2 considered_VVN in_II this_DD1 chapter_NN1 may_VM also_RR come_VVI into_II question_NN1 in_II cases_NN2 of_IO alleged_JJ unlawful_JJ competition_NN1 between_II traders_NN2 ,_, but_CCB in_II practice_NN1 they_PPHS2 are_VBR of_IO little_JJ significance_NN1 because_II21 of_II22 the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 's_GE refusal_NN1 to_TO adopt_VVI any_DD principle_NN1 of_IO '_GE fair_JJ competition_NN1 '_GE other_JJ than_CSN the_AT prohibition_NN1 of_IO obviously_RR unlawful_JJ acts_NN2 like_II torts_NN2 and_CC crimes_NN2 and_CC breaches_NN2 of_IO contract_NN1 ._. 
Any_DD full_JJ study_NN1 of_IO '_GE unfair_JJ competition_NN1 '_GE would_VM have_VHI to_TO take_VVI account_NN1 of_IO the_AT legislation_NN1 protecting_VVG intangible_JJ business_NN1 property_NN1 like_II trade_NN1 marks_NN2 and_CC patents_NN2 ,_, and_CC of_IO the_AT statutory_JJ controls_NN2 over_II restrictive_JJ trading_NN1 agreements_NN2 and_CC monopolies_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ have_VH0 little_DA1 or_CC nothing_PN1 to_TO do_VDI with_IW anything_PN1 resembling_VVG the_AT law_NN1 of_IO tort_NN1 ._. 
One_MC1 of_IO the_AT most_RGT significant_JJ sources_NN2 of_IO competition_NN1 law_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT EEC_NP1 Treaty_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ may_VM be_VBI directly_RR applicable_JJ in_II England_NP1 and_CC override_VV0 municipal_JJ law_NN1 ._. 
Article_NN1 85_MC prohibits_VVZ agreements_NN2 which_DDQ have_VH0 the_AT effect_NN1 of_IO restricting_VVG or_CC distorting_VVG competition_NN1 and_CC Article_NN1 86_MC prohibits_VVZ the_AT '_GE abuse_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 dominant_JJ &lsqb;_( market_NN1 &rsqb;_) position_NN1 ._. 
'_" It_PPH1 is_VBZ virtually_RR certain_JJ that_CST Article_NN1 86_MC gives_VVZ rise_NN1 to_II a_AT1 cause_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 in_II English_JJ law_NN1 at_II the_AT suit_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 person_NN1 damnified_VVD by_II its_APPGE contravention_NN1 and_CC it_PPH1 does_VDZ so_RR on_II the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 action_NN1 for_IF breach_NN1 of_IO statutory_JJ duty_NN1 so_CS21 that_CS22 the_AT court_NN1 may_VM award_VVI damages_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ a_AT1 remarkable_JJ development_NN1 and_CC leads_VVZ to_II a_AT1 sharp_JJ distinction_NN1 according_II21 to_II22 whether_CSW the_AT alleged_JJ improper_JJ trading_NN1 practice_NN1 can_VM be_VBI shown_VVN to_TO be_VBI within_II the_AT purview_NN1 of_IO the_AT Treaty_NN1 as_CSA affecting_JJ '_GE trade_NN1 between_II member_NN1 states_NN2 ._. 
'_" If_CSW it_PPH1 can_VM ,_, the_AT scope_NN1 of_IO the_AT remedy_NN1 in_II damages_NN2 is_VBZ immensely_RR wider_JJR than_CSN under_II pure_JJ municipal_JJ law_NN1 ,_, the_AT modern_JJ legislation_NN1 in_II which_DDQ has_VHZ generally_RR eschewed_VVN the_AT private_JJ action_NN1 for_IF damages_NN2 as_II a_AT1 means_NN of_IO enforcement_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, in_II Bourgoin_NP1 S.A._NP1 v._II Ministry_NN1 of_IO Agriculture_NN1 ,_, Fisheries_NN2 and_CC Food_NN1 the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 ,_, while_CS regarding_VVG itself_PPX1 as_CSA bound_VVN by_II the_AT view_NN1 that_CST Article_NN1 86_MC gave_VVD rise_NN1 to_II a_AT1 claim_NN1 for_IF damages_NN2 ,_, held_VVD that_CST another_DD1 directly_RR applicable_JJ provision_NN1 ,_, Article_NN1 30_MC (_( dealing_VVG with_IW quantitative_JJ restrictions_NN2 on_II imports_NN2 )_) attracted_VVD only_RR the_AT remedy_NN1 of_IO judicial_JJ review_NN1 ._. 
Further_JJR consideration_NN1 of_IO these_DD2 problems_NN2 belongs_VVZ to_II the_AT study_NN1 of_IO European_JJ law_NN1 and_CC competition_NN1 ._. 
Finally_RR ,_, the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 contained_VVD areas_NN2 of_IO tortious_JJ liability_NN1 for_IF interference_NN1 with_IW family_NN1 and_CC service_NN1 relationships_NN2 which_DDQ were_VBDR based_VVN upon_II the_AT archaic_JJ idea_NN1 that_CST a_AT1 man_NN1 had_VHD a_AT1 proprietary_JJ interest_NN1 in_II the_AT services_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE family_NN1 and_CC his_APPGE servants_NN2 ._. 
For_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, a_AT1 husband_NN1 whose_DDQGE wife_NN1 was_VBDZ incapacitated_VVN by_II the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE negligence_NN1 had_VHD his_APPGE own_DA action_NN1 against_II the_AT defendant_NN1 for_IF the_AT value_NN1 of_IO the_AT domestic_JJ services_NN2 which_DDQ she_PPHS1 had_VHD formerly_RR rendered_VVN and_CC for_IF the_AT loss_NN1 of_IO her_APPGE '_GE consortium_NN1 '_GE (_( or_CC society_NN1 )_) and_CC a_AT1 master_NN1 had_VHD a_AT1 remedy_NN1 for_IF '_GE enticement_NN1 '_GE against_II one_PN1 who_PNQS wrongfully_RR persuaded_VVD his_APPGE servant_NN1 to_TO leave_VVI his_APPGE employment_NN1 ._. 
Some_DD of_IO these_DD2 causes_NN2 of_IO action_NN1 were_VBDR restricted_VVN by_II judicial_JJ decision_NN1 and_CC by_II legislation_NN1 in_II 1970_MC ._. 
The_AT Administration_NN1 of_IO Justice_NN1 Act_NN1 1982_MC swept_VVD away_RL the_AT remaining_JJ ones_NN2 without_IW putting_VVG anything_PN1 in_II their_APPGE place_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Act_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX as_II a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO law_NN1 preclude_VV0 a_AT1 court_NN1 from_II holding_VVG that_CST an_AT1 action_NN1 for_IF negligence_NN1 lies_VVZ in_II31 favour_II32 of_II33 a_AT1 person_NN1 who_PNQS could_VM formerly_RR have_VHI brought_VVN an_AT1 action_NN1 based_VVN on_II loss_NN1 of_IO services_NN2 but_CCB in_II31 view_II32 of_II33 the_AT current_JJ law_NN1 on_II economic_JJ loss_NN1 it_PPH1 seems_VVZ most_DAT unlikely_JJ that_CST such_DA a_AT1 development_NN1 will_VM occur_VVI ._. 
INTERFERENCE_NN1 WITH_IW A_ZZ1 SUBSISTING_VVG CONTRACT_NN1 A_ZZ1 commits_VVZ a_AT1 tort_NN1 if_CS ,_, without_IW lawful_JJ justification_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 intentionally_RR interferes_VVZ with_IW a_AT1 contract_NN1 between_II B_ZZ1 and_CC C_ZZ1 ,_, (_( a_ZZ1 )_) by_II persuading_VVG B_ZZ1 to_TO break_VVI his_APPGE contract_NN1 with_IW C_NP1 ,_, or_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) if_CS by_II some_DD unlawful_JJ act_NN1 he_PPHS1 directly_RR or_CC indirectly_RR prevents_VVZ B_ZZ1 from_II performing_VVG his_APPGE contract_NN1 ._. 
The_AT existence_NN1 at_II common_JJ law_NN1 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 of_IO enticement_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 servant_NN1 has_VHZ already_RR been_VBN noticed_VVN ,_, but_CCB though_CS to_II modern_JJ eyes_NN2 it_PPH1 involved_VVD A_ZZ1 persuading_VVG B_ZZ1 to_TO break_VVI his_APPGE contract_NN1 with_IW C_NP1 its_APPGE historical_JJ origins_NN2 lie_VV0 more_RRR in_II status_NN1 than_CSN in_II contract_NN1 ._. 
The_AT origin_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 different_JJ approach_NN1 lies_VVZ in_II the_AT mid-nineteenth_MD century_NNT1 in_II Lumley_NP1 v._II Gye_NP1 ._. 
The_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE declaration_NN1 alleged_VVD that_CST he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ owner_NN1 of_IO the_AT Queen_NN1 's_GE Theatre_NN1 ,_, that_CST he_PPHS1 had_VHD contracted_VVN with_IW Johanna_NP1 Wagner_NP1 ,_, a_AT1 famous_JJ operatic_JJ singer_NN1 ,_, to_TO perform_VVI exclusively_RR in_II the_AT theatre_NN1 for_IF a_AT1 certain_JJ time_NNT1 and_CC that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 ,_, owner_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 rival_JJ theatre_NN1 ,_, wishing_VVG himself_PPX1 to_TO obtain_VVI Miss_NNB Wagner_NP1 's_GE services_NN2 '_GE knowing_VVG the_AT premises_NN2 and_CC maliciously_RR intending_VVG to_TO injure_VVI the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ..._... enticed_VVD and_CC persuaded_VVN &lsqb;_( her_APPGE &rsqb;_) to_TO refuse_VVI to_TO perform_VVI ._. 
'_GE On_II demurrer_NN1 it_PPH1 was_VBDZ held_VVN by_II the_AT majority_NN1 of_IO the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Queen_NN1 's_GE Bench_NN1 that_CST while_CS the_AT authorities_NN2 had_VHD until_II then_RT confined_VVN liability_NN1 for_IF enticement_NN1 to_II the_AT relation_NN1 between_II master_NN1 and_CC servant_NN1 (_( which_DDQ that_DD1 between_II Lumley_NP1 and_CC Wagner_NP1 clearly_RR was_VBDZ not_XX )_) yet_RR the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE claim_NN1 succeeded_VVD ._. 
The_AT majority_NN1 held_VVD that_CST the_AT case_NN1 could_VM be_VBI decided_VVN upon_II the_AT narrow_JJ ground_NN1 that_CST the_AT action_NN1 for_IF enticement_NN1 should_VM be_VBI extended_VVN beyond_II the_AT strict_JJ relation_NN1 of_IO master_NN1 and_CC servant_NN1 to_TO embrace_VVI other_JJ contracts_NN2 for_IF personal_JJ services_NN2 ,_, but_CCB support_NN1 was_VBDZ also_RR given_VVN in_II varying_JJ degrees_NN2 to_II a_AT1 broader_JJR proposition_NN1 that_CST a_AT1 plaintiff_NN1 might_VM sue_VVI for_IF the_AT knowing_JJ violation_NN1 of_IO the_AT security_NN1 of_IO any_DD type_NN1 of_IO contractual_JJ right_NN1 ._. 
In_II Bowen_NP1 v._II Hall_NN1 ,_, on_II rather_RG similar_JJ facts_NN2 ,_, the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 accepted_VVD the_AT broader_JJR proposition_NN1 and_CC doubted_VVD whether_CSW Lumley_NP1 v._II Gye_NP1 could_VM in_II fact_NN1 be_VBI based_VVN upon_II the_AT narrower_JJR ground_NN1 of_IO enticement_NN1 ._. 
The_AT rule_NN1 that_CST inducing_VVG or_CC procuring_VVG another_DD1 to_TO break_VVI his_APPGE contract_NN1 could_VM be_VBI actionable_JJ at_II the_AT suit_NN1 of_IO the_AT other_JJ contracting_JJ party_NN1 who_PNQS suffered_VVD damage_NN1 thereby_RR was_VBDZ only_RR accepted_VVN in_II the_AT face_NN1 of_IO strong_JJ dissent_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT good_JJ sense_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 is_VBZ clear_JJ ._. 
Commercial_JJ contractual_JJ relations_NN2 had_VHD become_VVN valuable_JJ rights_NN2 which_DDQ could_VM be_VBI regarded_VVN as_II entitled_VVN to_II at_RR21 least_RR22 some_DD of_IO the_AT protection_NN1 given_VVN by_II the_AT law_NN1 to_II property_NN1 and_CC while_CS it_PPH1 was_VBDZ argued_VVN that_CST the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ought_VMK to_TO be_VBI satisfied_VVN with_IW his_APPGE action_NN1 for_IF breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 against_II the_AT party_NN1 induced_VVD ,_, the_AT latter_DA might_VM be_VBI incapable_JJ of_IO paying_VVG all_DB the_AT damages_NN2 ._. 
The_AT tort_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN extended_VVN a_RR31 good_RR32 deal_RR33 since_CS Lumley_NP1 v._II Gye_NP1 and_CC in_II its_APPGE modern_JJ form_NN1 its_APPGE requirements_NN2 may_VM be_VBI summarised_VVN as_CSA follows_VVZ ._. 
For_IF convenience_NN1 of_IO exposition_NN1 reference_NN1 will_VM normally_RR be_VBI made_VVN to_II A_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 having_VHG brought_VVN about_RP a_AT1 '_GE breach_NN1 '_GE of_IO the_AT contract_NN1 between_II B_ZZ1 and_CC C_ZZ1 and_CC in_II most_DAT of_IO the_AT cases_NN2 this_DD1 will_VM have_VHI occurred_VVN but_CCB ,_, as_CSA we_PPIS2 shall_VM see_VVI ,_, there_EX may_VM be_VBI liability_NN1 without_IW an_AT1 actual_JJ breach_NN1 ._. 
Variants_NN2 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 (_( 1_MC1 )_) Direct_JJ persuasion_NN1 This_DD1 is_VBZ the_AT primary_JJ form_NN1 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 exemplified_VVN by_II the_AT facts_NN2 of_IO Lumley_NP1 v._II Gye_NP1 itself_PPX1 ._. 
A_AT1 distinction_NN1 may_VM be_VBI taken_VVN between_II persuasion_NN1 and_CC mere_JJ advice_NN1 ,_, and_CC advice_NN1 in_II the_AT sense_NN1 of_IO '_GE a_AT1 mere_JJ statement_NN1 of_IO ,_, or_CC drawing_NN1 of_IO the_AT attention_NN1 of_IO the_AT party_NN1 addressed_VVN to_II ,_, the_AT state_NN1 of_IO facts_NN2 as_CSA they_PPHS2 were_VBDR ,_, '_GE is_VBZ not_XX actionable_JJ ._. 
However_RR ,_, it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN said_VVN that_DD1 advice_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ intended_VVN to_TO have_VHI persuasive_JJ effect_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX distinguishable_JJ from_II inducement_NN1 and_CC '_GE the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST an_AT1 inducement_NN1 to_TO break_VVI a_AT1 contract_NN1 is_VBZ couched_VVN as_II an_AT1 irresistible_JJ embargo_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 in_II31 terms_II32 of_II33 seduction_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX make_VVI it_PPH1 any_RR the_AT less_RRR an_AT1 inducement_NN1 ._. 
'_" It_PPH1 is_VBZ submitted_VVN that_CST the_AT issue_NN1 is_VBZ really_RR one_MC1 of_IO intention_NN1 and_CC causation_NN1 ._. 
If_CS A_ZZ1 's_VBZ words_NN2 were_VBDR intended_VVN to_TO cause_VVI and_CC did_VDD cause_VVI B_ZZ1 to_TO break_VVI his_APPGE contract_NN1 with_IW C_NP1 ,_, then_RT they_PPHS2 are_VBR actionable_JJ by_II C_NP1 whatever_DDQV their_APPGE form_NN1 ._. 
If_CS so_RR ,_, bearing_VVG in_II mind_NN1 that_CST intention_NN1 in_II this_DD1 context_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX the_AT same_DA as_CSA motive_NN1 and_CC that_CST the_AT tort_NN1 may_VM be_VBI committed_VVN without_IW any_DD ill_JJ will_NN1 towards_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ likely_JJ to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 rare_JJ case_NN1 in_II which_DDQ A_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 words_NN2 have_VH0 had_VHN a_AT1 causative_JJ effect_NN1 on_II B_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 conduct_VV0 and_CC yet_RR A_ZZ1 escapes_VVZ liability_NN1 on_II the_AT ground_NN1 that_CST they_PPHS2 were_VBDR only_RR '_GE advice_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Liability_NN1 under_II this_DD1 head_NN1 may_VM arise_VVI from_II A_ZZ1 's_VBZ entering_VVG into_II a_AT1 contract_NN1 with_IW B_ZZ1 knowing_VVG that_CST the_AT contract_NN1 is_VBZ inconsistent_JJ with_IW a_AT1 prior_JJ contract_NN1 of_IO B_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 with_IW C_ZZ1 as_CSA in_II B._NP1 M._NN1 T._NP1 A._NP1 v._II Salvadori_NP1 where_RRQ A_ZZ1 bought_VVD a_AT1 car_NN1 from_II B_ZZ1 knowing_VVG that_CST the_AT sale_NN1 constituted_VVD a_AT1 breach_NN1 by_II B_ZZ1 of_IO his_APPGE contract_NN1 with_IW C_ZZ1 that_CST he_PPHS1 would_VM not_XX sell_VVI the_AT car_NN1 within_II a_AT1 year_NNT1 ._. 
Where_CS the_AT prior_JJ contract_NN1 of_IO B_ZZ1 and_CC C_ZZ1 is_VBZ specifically_RR enforceable_JJ it_PPH1 would_VM create_VVI an_AT1 equitable_JJ interest_NN1 in_II the_AT subject-matter_NN1 in_II31 favour_II32 of_II33 C_NP1 ,_, which_DDQ C_NP1 could_VM enforce_VVI against_II A_ZZ1 even_CS21 if_CS22 A_ZZ1 had_VHD only_RR constructive_JJ notice_NN1 of_IO C_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 rights_NN2 ._. 
In_II many_DA2 cases_NN2 this_DD1 would_VM render_VVI consideration_NN1 of_IO A_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 tort_VV0 liability_NN1 in_II a_AT1 case_NN1 of_IO actual_JJ knowledge_NN1 otiose_JJ ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 seems_VVZ possible_JJ to_TO assert_VVI such_DA a_AT1 claim_NN1 where_CS there_EX is_VBZ some_DD additional_JJ loss_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO land_NN1 ,_, statutory_JJ provisions_NN2 may_VM give_VVI priority_NN1 to_II a_AT1 later_JJR contract_NN1 registered_VVN as_II a_AT1 land_NN1 charge_NN1 even_CS21 if_CS22 entered_VVN into_II with_IW knowledge_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 earlier_JJR ,_, unregistered_JJ transaction_NN1 ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 seems_VVZ that_CST this_DD1 affects_VVZ only_RR proprietary_JJ rights_NN2 and_CC does_VDZ not_XX bar_VVI an_AT1 action_NN1 in_II tort_NN1 based_VVN on_II interference_NN1 with_IW the_AT earlier_JJR contract_NN1 ._. 
The_AT other_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 require_VV0 interference_NN1 by_II unlawful_JJ means_NN ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ sometimes_RT argued_VVN that_CST direct_JJ persuasion_NN1 applied_VVN by_II A_ZZ1 to_II B_NP1 not_XX to_TO perform_VVI his_APPGE contract_NN1 is_VBZ itself_PPX1 the_AT procurement_NN1 of_IO breach_NN1 by_II unlawful_JJ means_NN ,_, but_CCB the_AT argument_NN1 is_VBZ circular_JJ and_CC it_PPH1 seems_VVZ better_RRR simply_RR to_TO say_VVI that_CST in_II this_DD1 form_NN1 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 no_AT use_NN1 of_IO unlawful_JJ means_NN is_VBZ required._NNU (_( 2_MC )_) Direct_JJ intervention_NN1 This_DD1 takes_VVZ the_AT form_NN1 of_IO direct_JJ action_NN1 by_II A_ZZ1 on_II the_AT person_NN1 or_CC property_NN1 of_IO B_ZZ1 whereby_RRQ B_ZZ1 is_VBZ disabled_VVN from_II performing_VVG his_APPGE contract_NN1 with_IW C_NP1 ,_, as_CSA where_CS A_ZZ1 physically_RR detains_VVZ B_ZZ1 or_CC steals_VVZ B_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 specialised_VVD tools_NN2 without_IW which_DDQ B_ZZ1 can_VM not_XX carry_VVI out_RP his_APPGE obligation_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 similar_JJ case_NN1 exists_VVZ where_RRQ A_ZZ1 interferes_VVZ with_IW the_AT subject-matter_NN1 of_IO the_AT contract_NN1 in_II a_AT1 way_NN1 which_DDQ if_CS done_VDN by_II B_ZZ1 would_VM amount_NN1 to_II a_AT1 breach_NN1 of_IO the_AT contract_NN1 ._. 
In_II G.W.K._NP1 Ltd._JJ v._II Dunlop_NP1 Rubber_NN1 Co_NN1 ._. 
Ltd_JJ ._. 
B_ZZ1 manufactured_JJ cars_NN2 and_CC contracted_VVN with_IW C_ZZ1 that_CST all_DB cars_NN2 exhibited_VVN by_II B_ZZ1 should_VM be_VBI fitted_VVN with_IW tyres_NN2 of_IO C_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 manufacture_VV0 ._. 
At_II an_AT1 exhibition_NN1 ,_, A_ZZ1 ,_, who_PNQS also_RR manufactured_JJ tyres_NN2 ,_, secretly_RR removed_VVN C_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 tyres_NN2 from_II B_ZZ1 's_VBZ car_NN1 and_CC substituted_VVD his_APPGE own_DA ._. 
A_ZZ1 was_VBDZ held_VVN liable_JJ to_II B_ZZ1 for_IF trespass_NN1 to_II his_APPGE goods_NN2 and_CC to_II C_NP1 for_IF unlawful_JJ interference_NN1 with_IW his_APPGE contract_NN1 with_IW B._NP1 However_RR ,_, there_EX must_VM be_VBI some_DD conduct_NN1 which_DDQ is_58 '_GE unlawful_JJ '_GE apart_II21 from_II22 the_AT intent_JJ to_TO injure_VVI C_NP1 ,_, so_CS21 that_CS22 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, refusing_VVG ,_, without_IW any_DD breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 ,_, to_TO provide_VVI B_ZZ1 with_IW supplies_NN2 that_CST he_PPHS1 needs_VVZ to_TO fulfil_VVI his_APPGE contract_NN1 with_IW C_ZZ1 is_VBZ no_AT more_RRR a_AT1 tort_NN1 against_II C_NP1 than_CSN it_PPH1 is_VBZ against_II B_ZZ1 ,_, even_CS21 though_CS22 A_ZZ1 's_VBZ motive_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO injure_VVI C._NP1 (_( 3_MC )_) Indirect_JJ intervention_NN1 If_CS ,_, instead_II21 of_II22 persuading_VVG B_ZZ1 to_TO break_VVI his_APPGE contract_NN1 or_CC causing_VVG him_PPHO1 to_TO do_VDI so_RR by_II direct_JJ unlawful_JJ action_NN1 against_II him_PPHO1 ,_, A_ZZ1 brings_VVZ about_RP the_AT breach_NN1 of_IO the_AT contract_NN1 between_II B_ZZ1 and_CC C_ZZ1 by_II operating_VVG through_II a_AT1 third_MD party_NN1 ,_, X_ZZ1 ,_, A_ZZ1 may_VM still_RR be_VBI liable_JJ to_II C_NP1 ,_, provided_CS unlawful_JJ means_NN are_VBR used_VVN ._. 
A_AT1 common_JJ example_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 form_NN1 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 ,_, though_CS now_RT much_RR restricted_VVN by_II the_AT legislation_NN1 governing_JJ trade_NN1 disputes_NN2 ,_, has_VHZ been_VBN the_AT situation_NN1 where_RRQ X_ZZ1 is_VBZ B_ZZ1 's_VBZ servant_NN1 ,_, whom_PNQO A_ZZ1 induces_VVZ to_TO act_VVI in_II breach_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE contract_NN1 of_IO employment_NN1 so_BCL21 as_BCL22 to_TO prevent_VVI B_ZZ1 fulfilling_VVG his_APPGE contract_NN1 ._. 
In_II J._NP1 T._NP1 Stratford_NP1 &amp;_CC Son_NN1 Ltd._JJ v._II Lindley_NP1 ,_, C_NP1 carried_VVD on_RP business_NN1 hiring_VVG out_RP barges_NN2 to_II B._NP1 These_DD2 were_VBDR collected_VVN from_II C_NP1 and_CC returned_VVN to_II B_ZZ1 's_VBZ watermen_NN2 ._. 
The_AT defendants_NN2 (_( A_ZZ1 )_) were_VBDR officials_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 union_NN1 to_II which_DDQ all_RR21 but_RR22 a_AT1 very_RG few_DA2 watermen_NN2 belonged_VVD and_CC wished_VVD to_TO bring_VVI pressure_NN1 on_II C_NP1 in_II31 connection_II32 with_II33 a_AT1 grievance_NN1 at_II another_DD1 company_NN1 controlled_VVN by_II him_PPHO1 ._. 
Accordingly_RR ,_, A_ZZ1 instructed_VVD B_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 watermen_NN2 (_( X_ZZ1 )_) not_XX to_II man_NN1 ,_, service_NN1 or_CC tow_VV0 barges_NN2 belonging_VVG to_II C_NP1 ,_, an_AT1 embargo_NN1 which_DDQ soon_RR brought_VVN C_ZZ1 's_VBZ business_NN1 to_II a_AT1 standstill_NN1 as_CSA barges_VVZ which_DDQ were_VBDR out_RP on_II hire_NN1 were_VBDR not_XX returned_VVN ._. 
In_II proceedings_NN2 by_II C_NP1 against_II A_ZZ1 for_IF an_AT1 interlocutory_JJ injunction_NN1 the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP held_JJ that_CST a_AT1 prima_JJ21 facie_JJ22 case_NN1 had_VHD been_VBN established_VVN that_CST A_ZZ1 was_VBDZ liable_JJ for_IF procuring_VVG breaches_NN2 by_II B_ZZ1 of_IO the_AT hiring_NN1 contracts_NN2 ,_, the_AT unlawful_JJ means_NN being_VBG the_AT inducement_NN1 of_IO X_ZZ1 to_II '_GE black_NN1 '_GE the_AT barges_NN2 ._. 
The_AT unlawful_JJ means_NN adopted_VVN may_VM be_VBI considerably_RR more_RGR remote_JJ than_CSN interference_NN1 in_II the_AT contractual_JJ relationship_NN1 between_II B_ZZ1 and_CC his_APPGE servants_NN2 ._. 
In_II Merkur_NP1 Island_NNL1 Shipping_VVG Corporation._NP1 v._II Laughton_NP1 the_AT International_JJ Transport_NN1 Workers_NN2 '_GE Federation_NN1 (_( 1_MC1 ._. 
T.F._NP1 )_) wished_VVD to_TO bring_VVI pressure_NN1 on_II C_NP1 ,_, owners_NN2 of_IO the_AT Hoegh_NP1 Apapa_NP1 then_RT docked_VVN in_II Liverpool_NP1 under_II charter_NN1 to_II B_ZZ1 and_CC sub-charter_NN1 to_II N.L._NP1 N.L._NP1 had_VHD a_AT1 contract_NN1 with_IW tug_NN1 owners_NN2 to_TO take_VVI the_AT Hoegh_NP1 Apapa_NP1 out_RP ,_, but_CCB as_II a_AT1 result_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 request_NN1 from_II A_ZZ1 ,_, an_AT1 official_NN1 of_IO I.T.F._NP1 ,_, the_AT tug_NN1 crews_NN2 ,_, in_II breach_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE contracts_NN2 of_IO employment_NN1 ,_, refused_VVD to_TO move_VVI her_PPHO1 ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ held_VVN that_CST C_NP1 had_VHD made_VVN out_RP a_AT1 prima_JJ21 facie_JJ22 case_NN1 of_IO unlawful_JJ interference_NN1 with_IW its_APPGE contract_NN1 with_IW B_ZZ1 ,_, notwithstanding_RR that_CST the_AT direct_JJ inducement_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX ,_, as_CSA in_II Stratford_NP1 v._II Lindley_NP1 ,_, one_MC1 step_NN1 removed_VVN from_II the_AT contract_NN1 but_CCB three_MC steps_NN2 removed_VVD ._. 
In_II principle_NN1 there_EX was_VBDZ no_AT distinction_NN1 between_II indirect_JJ interference_NN1 at_II the_AT first_MD stage_NN1 and_CC such_DA interference_NN1 at_II a_AT1 remoter_JJR stage_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT more_RGR indirect_JJ and_CC remote_JJ the_AT interference_NN1 ,_, the_AT more_RGR difficult_JJ it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI to_TO establish_VVI on_II the_AT facts_NN2 that_CST A_ZZ1 did_VDD intend_VVI to_TO interfere_VVI with_IW the_AT particular_JJ contract_NN1 relied_VVN on_II by_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 and_CC that_CST that_DD1 interference_NN1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 necessary_JJ consequence_NN1 of_IO A_ZZ1 's_VBZ wrongful_JJ act._NNU (_( a_ZZ1 )_) Unlawful_JJ means_NN ._. 
In_II D._NP1 C._NP1 Thomson_NP1 &amp;_CC Co_NP1 ._. 
Ltd._JJ v._II Deakin_NP1 the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 was_VBDZ emphatically_RR of_IO the_AT opinion_NN1 that_CST unless_CS the_AT case_NN1 was_VBDZ one_MC1 of_IO direct_JJ inducement_NN1 of_IO B_ZZ1 ,_, the_AT tort_NN1 required_VVN the_AT use_NN1 of_IO some_DD independently_RR unlawful_JJ means_NN ._. 
The_AT difficulty_NN1 with_IW this_DD1 is_VBZ that_CST it_PPH1 makes_VVZ the_AT question_NN1 of_IO A_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 liability_NN1 to_II C_NP1 turn_NN1 on_II what_DDQ may_VM be_VBI a_AT1 purely_RR technical_JJ contravention_NN1 of_IO the_AT law_NN1 by_II A_ZZ1 which_DDQ is_VBZ of_IO no_AT real_JJ concern_NN1 to_II C._NP1 Further_RRR ,_, there_EX are_VBR uncertainties_NN2 in_II the_AT meaning_NN1 of_IO '_GE unlawful_JJ '_GE for_IF this_DD1 purpose_NN1 ._. 
Voices_NN2 have_VH0 sometimes_RT been_VBN heard_VVN to_TO question_VVI or_CC deny_VVI the_AT validity_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 requirement_NN1 but_CCB ,_, while_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ probably_RR true_JJ to_TO say_VVI that_CST this_DD1 issue_NN1 has_VHZ not_XX been_VBN central_JJ in_II the_AT cases_NN2 since_CS Thomson_NP1 v._II Deakin_NP1 ,_, the_AT necessity_NN1 for_IF unlawful_JJ means_NN has_VHZ been_VBN so_RG consistently_RR repeated_VVN in_II subsequent_JJ statements_NN2 of_IO the_AT law_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ now_RT hopeless_JJ to_TO argue_VVI the_AT contrary_NN1 ._. 
Nor_CC ,_, despite_II the_AT arbitrary_JJ results_NN2 capable_JJ of_IO being_VBG produced_VVN by_II the_AT requirement_NN1 of_IO illegality_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ the_AT law_NN1 necessarily_RR unwise_JJ in_II displaying_VVG this_DD1 reluctance_NN1 to_TO extend_VVI liability_NN1 ,_, for_CS if_CS the_AT requirement_NN1 of_IO illegality_NN1 were_VBDR abandoned_VVN a_AT1 much_RR greater_JJR burden_NN1 would_VM have_VHI to_TO be_VBI placed_VVN upon_II the_AT defence_NN1 of_IO justification_NN1 if_CS we_PPIS2 were_VBDR to_TO avoid_VVI the_AT intolerable_JJ situation_NN1 that_CST A_ZZ1 was_VBDZ liable_JJ to_II C_NP1 whenever_RRQV and_CC however_RRQV he_PPHS1 knowingly_RR brought_VVN about_RP a_AT1 breach_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 contract_NN1 between_II B_ZZ1 and_CC C._NP1 (_( b_ZZ1 )_) Inducement_NN1 by_II servant_NN1 ._. 
If_CS my_APPGE servant_NN1 ,_, acting_VVG bona_JJ21 fide_JJ22 within_II the_AT scope_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE authority_NN1 ,_, procures_NN2 or_CC causes_VVZ me_PPIO1 to_TO break_VVI a_AT1 contract_NN1 which_DDQ I_PPIS1 have_VH0 made_VVN with_IW you_PPY ,_, you_PPY can_VM not_XX sue_VVI the_AT servant_NN1 for_IF interference_NN1 with_IW the_AT contract_NN1 ;_; for_CS he_PPHS1 is_VBZ my_APPGE alter_NN121 ego_NN122 here_RL ,_, and_CC I_PPIS1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI sued_VVN for_IF inducing_VVG myself_PPX1 to_TO break_VVI a_AT1 contract_NN1 ,_, although_CS I_PPIS1 may_VM be_VBI liable_JJ for_IF breaking_VVG the_AT contract_NN1 ._. 
In_II Said_NP1 v._II Butt_NN1 the_AT plaintiff_NN1 wished_VVD to_TO get_VVI a_AT1 ticket_NN1 for_IF X_MC 's_GE theatre_NN1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 knew_VVD that_CST X_ZZ1 would_VM not_XX sell_VVI him_PPHO1 one_PN1 because_CS they_PPHS2 had_VHD quarrelled_VVN ._. 
He_PPHS1 therefore_RR persuaded_VVD a_AT1 friend_NN1 to_TO procure_VVI him_PPHO1 a_AT1 ticket_NN1 without_IW disclosing_VVG his_APPGE identity_NN1 ._. 
When_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 presented_VVD himself_PPX1 at_II the_AT theatre_NN1 ,_, the_AT defendant_NN1 ,_, who_PNQS was_VBDZ X_MC 's_GE servant_NN1 and_CC manager_NN1 of_IO the_AT theatre_NN1 ,_, detected_VVD the_AT plaintiff_NN1 and_CC refused_VVD to_TO admit_VVI him_PPHO1 ._. 
He_PPHS1 sued_VVD the_AT defendant_NN1 for_IF procuring_VVG a_AT1 breach_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE contract_NN1 with_IW X._NP1 The_AT action_NN1 was_VBDZ dismissed_VVN because_CS there_EX was_VBDZ no_AT contract_NN1 ,_, since_CS the_AT identity_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 was_VBDZ ,_, in_II the_AT circumstances_NN2 ,_, material_NN1 to_II the_AT formation_NN1 of_IO the_AT alleged_JJ contract_NN1 ;_; and_CC alternatively_RR ,_, even_CS21 if_CS22 there_EX had_VHD been_VBN a_AT1 valid_JJ contract_NN1 ,_, the_AT principle_NN1 stated_VVN above_RL would_VM prevent_VVI the_AT action_NN1 from_II lying_VVG ._. 
If_CS the_AT servant_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX act_VVI bona_JJ21 fide_JJ22 ,_, presumably_RR he_PPHS1 is_VBZ liable_JJ on_II the_AT ground_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 has_VHZ ceased_VVN to_TO be_VBI his_APPGE employer_NN1 's_GE alter_NN121 ego_NN122 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ true_JJ that_CST even_RR then_RT he_PPHS1 might_VM still_RR be_VBI acting_VVG in_II the_AT course_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE employment_NN1 ,_, but_CCB we_PPIS2 must_VM take_VVI it_PPH1 that_CST this_DD1 curious_JJ piece_NN1 of_IO metaphysics_NN1 exempts_VVZ the_AT employer_NN1 from_II vicarious_JJ liability_NN1 for_IF this_DD1 particular_JJ tort_NN1 ._. 
Intent_NN1 of_IO the_AT defendant_NN1 There_EX is_VBZ no_AT liability_NN1 under_II this_DD1 head_NN1 for_IF negligently_RR interfering_VVG with_IW C_ZZ1 's_VBZ rights_NN2 under_II contract_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 must_NN1 have_VH0 knowledge_NN1 of_IO the_AT contract_NN1 between_II B_ZZ1 and_CC C_ZZ1 or_CC act_VV0 with_IW the_AT intention_NN1 of_IO bringing_VVG about_RP a_AT1 breach_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 ._. 
As_II21 to_II22 knowledge_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, he_PPHS1 need_VM not_XX be_VBI familiar_JJ with_IW all_DB the_AT details_NN2 of_IO the_AT contract_NN1 ,_, for_IF otherwise_RR the_AT tort_NN1 would_VM hardly_RR ever_RR be_VBI committed_VVN ._. 
In_II Emerald_NN1 Construction_NN1 Co_NN1 ._. 
Ltd._JJ v._II Lowthian_JJ the_AT defendants_NN2 knew_VVD of_IO the_AT existence_NN1 of_IO the_AT contract_NN1 between_II the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 and_CC their_APPGE co-contractors_NN2 but_CCB they_PPHS2 did_VDD not_XX know_VVI its_APPGE precise_JJ terms_NN2 and_CC said_VVD that_CST they_PPHS2 assumed_VVD from_II their_APPGE experience_NN1 in_II other_JJ cases_NN2 that_CST it_PPH1 could_VM be_VBI terminated_VVN at_II short_JJ notice_NN1 ._. 
Nevertheless_RR ,_, the_AT evidence_NN1 showed_VVD that_CST the_AT defendants_NN2 were_VBDR determined_VVN to_TO bring_VVI the_AT contractual_JJ relationship_NN1 to_II an_AT1 end_NN1 if_CS they_PPHS2 could_VM ,_, regardless_RR of_IO whether_CSW it_PPH1 was_VBDZ done_VDN in_II breach_NN1 or_CC not_XX ._. 
The_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 held_VVD that_CST this_DD1 was_VBDZ sufficient_JJ to_TO entitle_VVI the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 to_II an_AT1 interlocutory_JJ injunction_NN1 ._. 
Where_CS a_AT1 defendant_NN1 is_VBZ familiar_JJ with_IW the_AT trade_NN1 in_II question_NN1 he_PPHS1 may_VM be_VBI taken_VVN to_TO have_VHI knowledge_NN1 of_IO the_AT existence_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 contract_NN1 even_CS21 though_CS22 he_PPHS1 can_VM not_XX identify_VVI the_AT other_JJ contracting_JJ party_NN1 and_CC even_CS21 though_CS22 he_PPHS1 may_VM have_VHI no_AT direct_JJ information_NN1 about_II any_DD particular_JJ contract_NN1 at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
In_II Merkur_NP1 Island_NNL1 Shipping_NN1 Corporation_NN1 v._II Laughton_NP1 the_AT defendants_NN2 were_VBDR in_II fact_NN1 given_VVN a_AT1 copy_NN1 of_IO the_AT charter_NN1 of_IO the_AT trapped_JJ vessel_NN1 before_II the_AT application_NN1 for_IF an_AT1 injunction_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP held_JJ that_CST they_PPHS2 had_VHD the_AT requisite_JJ knowledge_NN1 independently_RR of_IO this_DD1 ._. 
Commenting_VVG that_CST no_PN121 one_PN122 is_VBZ likely_JJ to_TO be_VBI better_RRR informed_VVN than_CSN a_AT1 seamen_NN2 's_GE union_NN1 as_II21 to_II22 the_AT terms_NN2 on_II which_DDQ vessels_NN2 sailing_VVG under_II flags_NN2 of_IO convenience_NN1 were_VBDR employed_VVN ,_, Lord_NNB Diplock_NP1 adopted_VVD the_AT words_NN2 of_IO the_AT Master_NN1 of_IO the_AT Rolls_NN2 in_II the_AT court_NN1 below_RL :_: '_" Whatever_DDQV the_AT precise_JJ degree_NN1 of_IO knowledge_NN1 of_IO the_AT defendants_NN2 at_II any_DD particular_JJ time_NNT1 ,_, faced_VVN with_IW a_AT1 laden_JJ ship_NN1 which_DDQ ,_, as_CSA they_PPHS2 well_RR knew_VVD ,_, was_VBDZ about_RPK to_TO leave_VVI port_NN1 ,_, the_AT defendants_NN2 must_VM in_II my_APPGE judgment_NN1 be_VBI deemed_VVN to_TO have_VHI known_VVN of_IO the_AT almost_RR certain_JJ existence_NN1 of_IO contracts_NN2 of_IO carriage_NN1 to_II which_DDQ the_AT shipowners_NN2 were_VBDR parties_NN2 ._. 
The_AT wholly_RR exceptional_JJ case_NN1 would_VM be_VBI that_DD1 of_IO a_AT1 ship_NN1 carrying_VVG the_AT owner_NN1 's_GE own_DA goods_NN2 ._. 
Whether_CSW that_DD1 contract_NN1 or_CC those_DD2 contracts_NN2 consisted_VVN of_IO a_AT1 time_NNT1 charter_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 voyage_NN1 charter_NN1 or_CC one_MC1 or_CC more_DAR bills_NN2 of_IO lading_NN1 contracts_NN2 or_CC some_DD or_CC all_DB of_IO such_DA contracts_NN2 would_VM have_VHI been_VBN immaterial_JJ to_II the_AT defendants_NN2 ._. 
Prima_RR21 facie_RR22 their_APPGE intention_NN1 was_VBDZ to_TO immobilise_VVI the_AT ship_NN1 and_CC in_II so_RR doing_VDG to_TO interfere_VVI with_IW the_AT performance_NN1 by_II the_AT owners_NN2 of_IO their_APPGE contract_NN1 or_CC contracts_NN2 of_IO carriage_NN1 ._. 
'_" There_EX is_VBZ ,_, however_RR ,_, no_AT general_JJ duty_NN1 actively_RR to_TO inquire_VVI about_II contracts_NN2 between_II others_NN2 ._. 
If_CS A_ZZ1 had_VHD an_AT1 honest_JJ doubt_NN1 whether_CSW there_EX was_VBDZ a_AT1 contract_NN1 at_II all_DB between_II B_ZZ1 and_CC C_ZZ1 it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN held_VVN that_CST this_DD1 would_VM provide_VVI a_AT1 good_JJ defence_NN1 but_CCB if_CS the_AT doubt_NN1 is_VBZ whether_CSW A_ZZ1 's_VBZ rights_NN2 or_CC C_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 under_RG two_MC inconsistent_JJ agreements_NN2 should_VM prevail_VVI and_CC A_ZZ1 chooses_VVZ to_TO adopt_VVI a_AT1 course_NN1 which_DDQ on_II one_MC1 view_NN1 of_IO the_AT law_NN1 will_VM undoubtedly_RR interfere_VVI with_IW C_ZZ1 's_VBZ rights_NN2 ,_, it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN said_VVN that_CST he_PPHS1 must_VM at_RR21 least_RR22 show_VVI that_CST he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ advised_VVN and_CC honestly_RR believed_VVN that_CST he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ entitled_VVN to_TO take_VVI that_DD1 course_NN1 ._. 
The_AT meaning_NN1 of_IO intention_NN1 gives_VVZ rise_NN1 to_II difficulty_NN1 ._. 
The_AT problem_NN1 may_VM be_VBI illustrated_VVN by_II the_AT county_NN1 court_NN1 case_NN1 of_IO Falconer_NP1 v._II A._NP1 S._NP1 L._NP1 E._NP1 F._NP1 The_AT defendants_NN2 called_VVN rail_NN1 workers_NN2 out_RP on_II strike_NN1 and_CC the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ,_, an_AT1 ordinary_JJ traveller_NN1 ,_, incurred_VVN hotel_NN1 expenses_NN2 when_RRQ he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ unable_JK to_TO travel_VVI on_II the_AT journey_NN1 for_IF which_DDQ he_PPHS1 had_VHD bought_VVN a_AT1 ticket_NN1 ._. 
The_AT '_GE target_NN1 '_GE of_IO the_AT strike_NN1 action_NN1 was_VBDZ undoubtedly_RR the_AT railway_NN1 undertaking_NN1 but_CCB it_PPH1 was_VBDZ obviously_RR a_AT1 necessary_JJ consequence_NN1 of_IO the_AT strike_NN1 's_VBZ having_VHG any_DD effect_NN1 at_II all_DB that_CST it_PPH1 should_VM lead_VVI to_II interference_NN1 in_II the_AT performance_NN1 of_IO contracts_NN2 of_IO carriage_NN1 ._. 
The_AT learned_JJ judge_NN1 held_VVD that_CST the_AT defendants_NN2 '_GE intended_JJ '_GE to_TO interfere_VVI with_IW the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE contract_NN1 for_IF the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO this_DD1 tort_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, in_II Barretts_NP2 &amp;_CC Baird_NP1 (_( Wholesale_JJ )_) Ltd._JJ v._II I._NP1 P._NP1 C.S._NP2 Henry_NP1 J._NP1 held_VVD that_CST the_AT intention_NN1 of_IO strikers_NN2 was_VBDZ to_TO put_VVI pressure_NN1 on_II their_APPGE employers_NN2 to_TO improve_VVI their_APPGE conditions_NN2 of_IO service_NN1 and_CC not_XX to_TO disrupt_VVI the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 '_GE contracts_NN2 ,_, even_CS21 though_CS22 that_DD1 was_VBDZ an_AT1 unavoidable_JJ by-product_NN1 of_IO the_AT strike_NN1 ._. 
'_GE On_II the_AT evidence_NN1 the_AT desire_NN1 to_TO strike_VVI was_VBDZ the_AT cause_NN1 of_IO the_AT injury_NN1 to_II the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 rather_II21 than_II22 the_AT desire_NN1 to_TO injure_VVI the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 being_VBG the_AT cause_NN1 of_IO the_AT strike_NN1 ._. 
'_GE The_AT first_MD view_NN1 would_VM probably_RR extend_VVI the_AT law_NN1 further_RRR than_CSN it_PPH1 has_VHZ commonly_RR been_VBN thought_VVN to_TO go_VVI and_CC would_VM expose_VVI strikers_NN2 having_VHG no_AT immunity_NN1 under_II trade_NN1 union_NN1 legislation_NN1 to_II a_AT1 very_RG wide-ranging_JJ liability_NN1 ;_; on_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX quite_RG accurate_JJ to_TO describe_VVI the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 in_II these_DD2 two_MC cases_NN2 as_CSA merely_RR '_GE ricochet_NN1 '_GE victims_NN2 for_IF it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI the_AT effect_NN1 of_IO pressure_NN1 on_II the_AT public_NN1 and_CC customers_NN2 which_DDQ causes_VVZ the_AT employer_NN1 to_TO succumb_VVI to_II the_AT strikers_NN2 '_GE demands_NN2 ._. 
However_RR ,_, even_RR on_II the_AT view_NN1 that_CST the_AT plaintiff_NN1 must_VM be_VBI the_AT target_NN1 ,_, no_AT malice_NN1 or_CC spite_NN1 is_VBZ required_VVN :_: apart_II21 from_II22 the_AT protection_NN1 of_IO the_AT trade_NN1 disputes_NN2 legislation_NN1 the_AT tort_NN1 would_VM be_VBI committed_VVN by_II a_AT1 trade_NN1 union_NN1 officer_NN1 calling_VVG his_APPGE members_NN2 out_RP on_II strike_NN1 and_CC he_PPHS1 can_VM not_XX defend_VVI himself_PPX1 by_II arguing_VVG that_CST his_APPGE purpose_NN1 was_VBDZ the_AT increase_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE members_NN2 '_GE wages_NN2 :_: unlike_II the_AT tort_NN1 of_IO conspiracy_NN1 ,_, no_AT predominant_JJ purpose_NN1 to_TO injure_VVI the_AT plaintiff_NN1 is_VBZ required_VVN ._. 
There_EX must_VM have_VHI been_VBN interference_NN1 with_IW performance_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 contract_NN1 Though_CS the_AT wider_JJR wrongs_NN2 of_IO intimidation_NN1 and_CC interference_NN1 with_IW trade_NN1 by_II unlawful_JJ means_NN may_VM protect_VVI mere_JJ expectancies_NN2 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ no_AT doubt_NN1 that_CST for_IF the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 we_PPIS2 are_VBR now_RT considering_CS there_EX must_VM be_VBI interference_NN1 with_IW a_AT1 subsisting_NN1 contract_NN1 between_II B_ZZ1 and_CC C._NP1 Hence_RR if_CS the_AT contract_NN1 allegedly_RR broken_VVN proves_VVZ to_TO be_VBI void_JJ there_EX is_VBZ no_AT tort_NN1 ._. 
On_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, if_CS the_AT contract_NN1 is_VBZ merely_RR unenforceable_JJ (_( e._ZZ1 g._NNU for_IF non-compliance_NN1 with_IW section_NN1 40_MC of_IO the_AT Law_NN1 of_IO Property_NN1 Act_NN1 1925_MC )_) then_RT it_PPH1 may_VM well_RR be_VBI actionable_JJ to_TO procure_VVI its_APPGE breach_NN1 ._. 
The_AT action_NN1 would_VM not_XX be_VBI an_AT1 indirect_JJ method_NN1 of_IO enforcing_VVG the_AT contract_NN1 against_II the_AT other_JJ contracting_JJ party_NN1 because_CS it_PPH1 lies_VVZ against_II a_AT1 third_MD party_NN1 and_CC in_II tort_NN1 ._. 
There_EX need_VM not_XX in_II all_DB cases_NN2 be_VBI an_AT1 actual_JJ breach_NN1 of_IO the_AT contract_NN1 ._. 
In_II Torquay_NP1 Hotel_NN1 Co_NN1 ._. 
Ltd._JJ v._II Cousins_NP1 an_AT1 interlocutory_JJ injunction_NN1 was_VBDZ issued_VVN to_TO restrain_VVI the_AT defendants_NN2 from_II preventing_VVG oil_NN1 companies_NN2 from_II carrying_VVG out_RP their_APPGE contracts_NN2 to_TO deliver_VVI oil_NN1 to_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE hotel_NN1 notwithstanding_RR that_CST the_AT contract_NN1 with_IW the_AT principal_JJ supplier_NN1 of_IO oil_NN1 contained_VVD a_AT1 clause_NN1 absolving_VVG it_PPH1 from_II liability_NN1 if_CS delivery_NN1 was_VBDZ prevented_VVN by_II circumstances_NN2 outside_II its_APPGE control_NN1 ._. 
Lord_NNB Denning_NP1 M.R._NNB said_VVD that_DD1 liability_NN1 extends_VVZ to_II a_AT1 case_NN1 where_RRQ a_AT1 '_GE third_MD person_NN1 prevents_VVZ or_CC hinders_VVZ one_MC1 party_NN1 from_II performing_VVG his_APPGE contract_NN1 ,_, even_CS21 though_CS22 it_PPH1 be_VBI not_XX a_AT1 breach_NN1 ._. 
'_" Whatever_DDQV the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE conduct_NN1 this_DD1 should_VM be_VBI so_RR where_CS there_EX is_58 '_GE no_AT breach_NN1 '_GE only_RR in_II the_AT sense_NN1 that_CST an_AT1 exemption_NN1 clause_NN1 in_II the_AT contract_NN1 allows_VVZ a_AT1 contracting_JJ party_NN1 to_TO escape_VVI liability_NN1 in_II damages_NN2 for_IF non-performance_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE obligation_NN1 ._. 
Again_RT ,_, where_CS the_AT defendant_NN1 uses_VVZ unlawful_JJ means_NN to_TO interfere_VVI with_IW a_AT1 contractual_JJ relationship_NN1 there_EX would_VM be_VBI no_AT point_NN1 in_II requiring_VVG any_DD sort_NN1 of_IO breach_NN1 ,_, because_CS even_RR interference_NN1 with_IW prospective_JJ ,_, non-contractual_JJ advantages_NN2 by_II such_DA means_NN may_VM be_VBI actionable_JJ ._. 
However_RR ,_, despite_II an_AT1 apparent_JJ dictum_NN1 to_II the_AT contrary_NN1 ,_, the_AT Torquay_NP1 Hotel_NN1 principle_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ submitted_VVN ,_, extend_VV0 to_II imposing_JJ liability_NN1 in_II a_AT1 case_NN1 where_RRQ A_ZZ1 has_VHZ ,_, without_IW any_DD unlawful_JJ act_NN1 ,_, done_VDN no_AT more_DAR than_CSN persuade_VV0 B_ZZ1 to_TO exercise_VVI an_AT1 option_NN1 open_VV0 to_II him_PPHO1 under_II his_APPGE contract_NN1 with_IW C_NP1 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, to_TO terminate_VVI it_PPH1 by_II proper_JJ notice_NN1 ,_, for_IF so_RR to_TO hold_VVI would_VM be_VBI to_TO draw_VVI an_AT1 indefensible_JJ distinction_NN1 between_II existing_JJ ,_, but_CCB terminable_JJ ,_, relationships_NN2 and_CC those_DD2 which_DDQ are_VBR merely_RR prospective_JJ ,_, and_CC render_VV0 it_PPH1 necessary_JJ to_TO fall_VVI back_RP on_II the_AT defence_NN1 of_IO justification_NN1 in_II order_NN1 ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, lawfully_RR to_TO persuade_VVI an_AT1 employee_NN1 to_TO change_VVI his_APPGE employment_NN1 for_IF higher_JJR pay_NN1 ._. 
Though_CS Lord_NNB Denning_NP1 's_GE formulation_NN1 was_VBDZ approved_VVN in_II unqualified_JJ terms_NN2 in_II Merkur_NP1 Island_NNL1 Shipping_VVG Corporation._NP1 v._II Laughton_NP1 that_DD1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 clear_JJ case_NN1 of_IO unlawful_JJ means_NN and_CC the_AT approval_NN1 should_VM be_VBI read_VVN with_IW that_DD1 in_II mind_NN1 ._. 
While_CS there_EX may_VM be_VBI wrongful_JJ interference_NN1 with_IW contract_NN1 short_NN1 of_IO actual_JJ breach_NN1 ,_, there_EX must_VM be_VBI interference_NN1 with_IW performance_NN1 of_IO the_AT contract_NN1 ._. 
Accordingly_RR ,_, makers_NN2 and_CC dealers_NN2 in_II '_GE bootleg_NN1 '_GE recordings_NN2 did_VDD not_XX commit_VVI this_DD1 tort_NN1 even_CS21 though_CS22 their_APPGE activities_NN2 very_RG seriously_RR affected_VVN the_AT value_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 contract_NN1 giving_VVG a_AT1 recording_NN1 company_NN1 the_AT exclusive_JJ right_NN1 to_TO exploit_VVI live_JJ performances_NN2 ._. 
If_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 tort_NN1 wrongfully_RR to_TO procure_VVI a_AT1 breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 is_VBZ it_PPH1 also_RR a_AT1 tort_NN1 to_TO procure_VVI the_AT commission_NN1 of_IO other_JJ legal_JJ wrongs_NN2 ?_? 
There_EX is_VBZ no_AT need_NN1 to_TO call_VVI up_RP the_AT tort_NN1 where_CS the_AT legal_JJ wrong_NN1 procured_VVN is_VBZ itself_PPX1 a_AT1 tort_NN1 against_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ,_, for_IF the_AT procurer_NN1 is_VBZ then_RT himself_PPX1 liable_JJ as_II a_AT1 joint_JJ tortfeasor_NN1 ;_; nor_CC ,_, it_PPH1 seems_VVZ ,_, is_VBZ there_EX a_AT1 tort_NN1 of_IO inducing_VVG a_AT1 breach_NN1 of_IO trust_NN1 ,_, because_CS a_AT1 person_NN1 who_PNQS procures_VVZ such_DA an_AT1 act_NN1 becomes_VVZ himself_PPX1 ,_, by_II the_AT doctrines_NN2 of_IO equity_NN1 ,_, liable_JJ as_II a_AT1 trustee_NN1 ._. 
Procuring_VVG the_AT commission_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 criminal_JJ offence_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 tort_NN1 unless_CS the_AT crime_NN1 also_RR amounts_VVZ to_II a_AT1 tort_NN1 against_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ,_, in_II which_DDQ case_VV0 the_AT procurer_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 joint_JJ tortfeasor_NN1 ._. 
Plaintiff_NN1 must_VM prove_VVI that_CST he_PPHS1 has_VHZ suffered_VVN damage_NN1 as_II a_AT1 result_NN1 of_IO the_AT interference_NN1 Damage_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT gist_NN1 of_IO the_AT action_NN1 and_CC without_IW it_PPH1 the_AT plaintiff_NN1 must_VM fail_VVI ._. 
Where_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ clear_JJ that_CST the_AT contract-breaker_NN1 would_VM have_VHI taken_VVN the_AT same_DA steps_NN2 anyway_RR the_AT inducement_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX an_AT1 effective_JJ cause_NN1 of_IO the_AT loss_NN1 ._. 
Where_RRQ ,_, as_CSA will_VM normally_RR be_VBI the_AT case_NN1 ,_, the_AT breach_NN1 is_VBZ such_II21 as_II22 must_VM in_II the_AT ordinary_JJ course_NN1 of_IO business_NN1 inflict_VV0 damage_NN1 on_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 may_VM succeed_VVI without_IW proof_NN1 of_IO any_DD particular_JJ damage_NN1 ._. 
Where_CS loss_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 pecuniary_JJ nature_NN1 is_VBZ inferred_VVN or_CC proved_VVD ,_, the_AT plaintiff_NN1 may_VM also_RR recover_VVI damages_NN2 for_IF non-pecuniary_JJ losses_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 injured_JJ feelings_NN2 ._. 
Defence_NN1 of_IO justification_NN1 It_PPH1 is_VBZ certain_JJ that_CST justification_NN1 is_VBZ capable_JJ of_IO being_VBG a_AT1 defence_NN1 to_II this_DD1 tort_NN1 ,_, but_CCB what_DDQ constitutes_VVZ justification_NN1 is_VBZ incapable_JJ of_IO exact_JJ definition_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN said_VVN that_DD1 regard_NN1 must_VM be_VBI had_VHN to_II the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO the_AT contract_NN1 broken_VVN ,_, the_AT position_NN1 of_IO the_AT parties_NN2 to_II the_AT contract_NN1 ,_, the_AT grounds_NN2 for_IF the_AT breach_NN1 ,_, the_AT means_NN employed_VVD to_TO procure_VVI it_PPH1 ,_, the_AT relation_NN1 of_IO the_AT person_NN1 procuring_VVG it_PPH1 to_II the_AT person_NN1 who_PNQS breaks_VVZ the_AT contract_NN1 ,_, and_CC the_AT object_NN1 of_IO the_AT person_NN1 procuring_VVG the_AT breach_NN1 ._. 
The_AT advancement_NN1 of_IO one_PN1 's_GE own_DA interests_NN2 will_VM not_XX suffice_VVI ,_, nor_CC will_VM that_DD1 of_IO the_AT interests_NN2 of_IO one_PN1 's_GE own_DA group_NN1 and_CC the_AT defendant_NN1 can_VM not_XX escape_VVI by_II showing_VVG that_CST his_APPGE motives_NN2 are_VBR impersonal_JJ ,_, disinterested_JJ and_CC altruistic_JJ ._. 
However_RR ,_, in_II Brimelow_NP1 v._II Casson_NP1 ,_, persuasion_NN1 of_IO theatre_NN1 proprietors_NN2 by_II a_AT1 theatrical_JJ performers_NN2 '_GE protection_NN1 society_NN1 to_TO break_VVI their_APPGE contracts_NN2 with_IW a_AT1 theatrical_JJ manager_NN1 was_VBDZ justified_VVN on_II the_AT grounds_NN2 that_CST the_AT wage_NN1 paid_VVN by_II the_AT manager_NN1 to_II chorus_NN1 girls_NN2 was_VBDZ so_RG low_JJ that_CST they_PPHS2 were_VBDR obliged_VVN to_TO supplement_VVI it_PPH1 by_II resort_NN1 to_II prostitution_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN suggested_VVN that_DD1 pressure_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 moral_JJ obligation_NN1 as_CSA justification_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO Brimelow_NN1 v._II Casson_NP1 ,_, though_CS the_AT case_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN said_VVN to_TO stand_VVI alone_JJ and_CC there_EX are_VBR conflicting_JJ dicta_NN2 on_II moral_JJ obligation_NN1 ._. 
Presumably_RR there_EX is_VBZ justification_NN1 when_CS a_AT1 doctor_NN1 urges_VVZ his_APPGE patient_NN1 to_TO give_VVI up_RP a_AT1 fixed_JJ term_NN1 employment_NN1 because_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 danger_NN1 to_II his_APPGE health_NN1 ,_, but_CCB what_DDQ of_IO the_AT tutor_NN1 who_PNQS insists_VVZ that_CST his_APPGE student_NN1 give_VV0 up_RP a_AT1 vacation_NN1 job_NN1 because_CS it_PPH1 will_VM interfere_VVI with_IW his_APPGE studies_NN2 ?_? 
The_AT question_NN1 of_IO justification_NN1 may_VM also_RR arise_VVI where_RRQ A_ZZ1 seeks_VVZ to_TO assert_VVI rights_NN2 under_II a_AT1 contract_NN1 with_IW B_ZZ1 which_DDQ is_VBZ inconsistent_JJ with_IW another_DD1 contract_NN1 between_II B_ZZ1 and_CC C._NP1 The_AT question_NN1 here_RL is_VBZ whether_CSW A_ZZ1 has_VHZ a_AT1 right_JJ equal_JJ or_CC superior_JJ to_II that_DD1 of_IO C_ZZ1 and_CC if_CS he_PPHS1 has_VHZ he_PPHS1 is_VBZ justified_VVN in_II persuading_VVG B_ZZ1 to_TO break_VVI his_APPGE contract_NN1 with_IW C._NP1 So_RR if_CS B_ZZ1 enters_VVZ into_II a_AT1 contract_NN1 on_II Monday_NPD1 to_TO sell_VVI to_II A_ZZ1 for_IF 10,000_MC and_CC then_RT next_MD day_NNT1 to_TO sell_VVI the_AT same_DA property_NN1 to_II C_NP1 for_IF 15,000_MC A_ZZ1 ,_, by_II persuading_VVG B_ZZ1 to_TO perform_VVI the_AT first_MD contract_NN1 commits_VVZ no_AT wrong_JJ against_II C._NP1 A_ZZ1 will_VM also_RR be_VBI justified_VVN in_II reaching_VVG an_AT1 accommodation_NN1 with_IW B_ZZ1 rather_II21 than_II22 exercising_VVG his_APPGE strict_JJ legal_JJ rights_NN2 under_II the_AT contract_NN1 ._. 
In_II Edwin_NP1 Hill_NNL1 &amp;_CC Partners_NN2 v._II First_MD National_JJ Finance_NN1 Corporation_NN1 a_AT1 finance_NN1 company_NN1 which_DDQ had_VHD a_AT1 legal_JJ charge_NN1 over_II B_ZZ1 's_VBZ property_NN1 to_TO secure_VVI a_AT1 loan_NN1 came_VVD to_II an_AT1 arrangement_NN1 with_IW B_ZZ1 whereby_RRQ they_PPHS2 would_VM develop_VVI the_AT property_NN1 themselves_PPX2 rather_CS21 than_CS22 exercise_VVI their_APPGE power_NN1 of_IO sale_NN1 under_II the_AT charge_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 condition_NN1 in_II this_DD1 arrangement_NN1 whereby_RRQ the_AT plaintiff_NN1 was_VBDZ to_TO be_VBI replaced_VVN as_CSA architect_NN1 for_IF the_AT scheme_NN1 did_VDD not_XX constitute_VVI inducing_VVG breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN suggested_VVN that_CST the_AT defence_NN1 of_IO justification_NN1 can_VM never_RR succeed_VVI if_CSW unlawful_JJ means_NN are_VBR used_VVN ,_, but_CCB this_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX certain_JJ ._. 
INTIMIDATION_NN1 The_AT word_NN1 '_GE intimidation_NN1 '_GE when_CS used_VVN in_II the_AT present_JJ context_NN1 signifies_VVZ a_AT1 threat_NN1 delivered_VVN by_II A_ZZ1 to_II B_ZZ1 whereby_RRQ A_ZZ1 intentionally_RR causes_VVZ B_NP1 to_TO act_VVI (_( or_CC refrain_VV0 from_II acting_VVG )_) either_RR to_II his_APPGE own_DA detriment_NN1 or_CC to_II the_AT detriment_NN1 of_IO C._NP1 There_EX are_VBR thus_RR two_MC forms_NN2 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ will_VM be_VBI considered_VVN separately_RR ,_, but_CCB first_MD two_MC general_JJ points_NN2 must_VM be_VBI mentioned._NNU (_( a_ZZ1 )_) '_GE Threat_NN1 '_GE when_CS used_VVN in_II this_DD1 connection_NN1 means_NN '_GE an_AT1 intimation_NN1 by_II one_PN1 to_II another_DD1 that_CST unless_CS the_AT latter_DA does_VDZ or_CC does_VDZ not_XX do_VDI something_PN1 the_AT former_DA will_VM do_VDI something_PN1 which_DDQ the_AT latter_DA will_VM not_XX like_VVI ._. 
'_" It_PPH1 is_VBZ coercive_JJ and_CC not_XX mere_JJ idle_JJ abuse_NN1 and_CC demands_NN2 either_RR action_NN1 or_CC abstention_NN1 from_II action_NN1 on_II41 the_II42 part_II43 of_II44 the_AT recipient_NN1 ,_, so_RR a_AT1 mere_JJ announcement_NN1 by_II A_ZZ1 that_CST he_PPHS1 proposes_VVZ to_TO strike_VVI B_ZZ1 is_VBZ not_XX ,_, for_IF the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO the_AT law_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 '_GE threat_NN1 '_GE and_CC can_VM not_XX of_IO itself_PPX1 give_VV0 rise_NN1 to_II a_AT1 claim_NN1 for_IF damages_NN2 ._. 
On_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST a_AT1 threat_NN1 is_VBZ couched_VVN in_II polite_JJ and_CC regretful_JJ language_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX make_VVI it_PPH1 any_RR less_RRR a_AT1 threat_NN1 ,_, and_CC there_EX is_VBZ little_DA1 value_NN1 in_II the_AT distinction_NN1 which_DDQ has_VHZ been_VBN suggested_VVN between_II a_AT1 warning_NN1 and_CC a_AT1 threat._NNU (_( b_ZZ1 )_) For_IF a_AT1 threat_NN1 as_CSA thus_RR defined_VVN to_TO be_VBI capable_JJ of_IO giving_VVG rise_NN1 to_II an_AT1 action_NN1 for_IF damages_NN2 on_II41 the_II42 part_II43 of_II44 anyone_PN1 it_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI a_AT1 threat_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 unlawful_JJ act_NN1 ._. 
Anything_PN1 that_CST I_PPIS1 may_VM lawfully_RR do_VDI I_PPIS1 may_VM also_RR lawfully_RR threaten_VVI to_TO do_VDI ,_, whatever_DDQV the_AT motive_NN1 or_CC purpose_NN1 of_IO my_APPGE threat_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ an_AT1 inescapable_JJ result_NN1 of_IO Allen_NP1 v._II Flood_NN1 ,_, however_RGQV unfortunate_JJ some_DD of_IO its_APPGE consequences_NN2 may_VM be_VBI ._. 
Accordingly_RR in_II Hardie_NP1 and_CC Lane_NN1 Ltd._JJ v._II Chilton_NP1 ,_, the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 held_VVD that_CST a_AT1 threat_NN1 by_II A_ZZ1 ,_, a_AT1 trading_NN1 association_NN1 ,_, to_TO put_VVI B_ZZ1 ,_, one_MC1 of_IO its_APPGE members_NN2 ,_, on_II a_AT1 '_GE stop_NN1 list_NN1 '_GE (_( which_DDQ would_VM prevent_VVI B_ZZ1 from_II getting_VVG goods_NN2 from_II the_AT members_NN2 of_IO the_AT association_NN1 )_) unless_CS B_ZZ1 paid_VVD a_AT1 sum_NN1 of_IO money_NN1 for_IF having_VHG broken_VVN a_AT1 rule_NN1 of_IO the_AT association_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX a_AT1 tort_NN1 ._. 
Third-party_JJ intimidation_NN1 Despite_II some_DD earlier_JJR hesitations_NN2 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ now_RT certain_JJ that_CST A_ZZ1 commits_VVZ the_AT tort_NN1 of_IO intimidation_NN1 against_II C_ZZ1 if_CS he_PPHS1 threatens_VVZ B_ZZ1 with_IW conduct_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ unlawful_JJ in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 B_ZZ1 and_CC thereby_RR intentionally_RR causes_VVZ B_NP1 to_TO act_VVI (_( or_CC refrain_VV0 from_II acting_VVG )_) in_II a_AT1 way_NN1 which_DDQ causes_VVZ damage_NN1 to_II C._NP1 It_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 requirement_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 tort_NN1 that_CST B_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 conduct_VV0 be_VBI in_II any_DD way_NN1 unlawful_JJ in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 C._NP1 An_AT1 old_JJ illustration_NN1 is_VBZ Garret_NN1 v._II Taylor_NP1 ,_, where_CS the_AT plaintiff_NN1 was_VBDZ the_AT lessee_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 quarry_NN1 and_CC alleged_VVD that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 had_VHD '_GE disturbed_JJ '_GE his_APPGE customers_NN2 and_CC his_APPGE workmen_NN2 by_II '_GE threatening_VVG to_II mayhem_NN1 and_CC vex_VV0 them_PPHO2 with_IW suits_NN2 if_CS they_PPHS2 had_VHD brought_VVN any_DD stones_NN2 ._. 
'_" It_PPH1 was_VBDZ held_VVN that_CST on_II these_DD2 facts_NN2 the_AT plaintiff_NN1 had_VHD a_AT1 good_JJ cause_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 ._. 
In_II Rookes_NP2 v._II Barnard_NP1 ,_, decided_VVN by_II the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP in_II 1964_MC and_CC the_AT leading_JJ authority_NN1 on_II this_DD1 tort_NN1 ,_, the_AT plaintiff_NN1 (_( C_ZZ1 )_) was_VBDZ employed_VVN by_II B.0.A.C_FO ._. 
(_( B_ZZ1 )_) in_II their_APPGE design_NN1 office_NN1 and_CC the_AT three_MC defendants_NN2 (_( A_ZZ1 )_) were_VBDR officials_NN2 of_IO the_AT A.E.S.D._NP1 Union_NP1 ,_, two_MC of_IO them_PPHO2 also_RR being_VBG employees_NN2 of_IO B.O.A.C._NP1 C_NP1 had_VHD been_VBN but_CCB was_VBDZ no_RR21 longer_RR22 a_AT1 member_NN1 of_IO the_AT Union_NN1 ._. 
In_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO preserve_VVI 100_MC per_NNU21 cent._NNU22 union_NN1 membership_NN1 in_II the_AT design_NN1 office_NN1 and_CC notwithstanding_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST a_AT1 strike_NN1 would_VM have_VHI involved_VVN the_AT men_NN2 in_II breaches_NN2 of_IO their_APPGE contracts_NN2 of_IO employment_NN1 ,_, A_ZZ1 notified_JJ B_ZZ1 of_IO the_AT resolution_NN1 passed_VVN by_II members_NN2 of_IO the_AT union_NN1 that_CST if_CS C_NP1 was_VBDZ not_XX dismissed_VVN ,_, '_GE a_AT1 withdrawal_NN1 of_IO labour_NN1 of_IO all_DB A.E.S.D._NP1 Membership_NN1 will_VM take_VVI place_NN1 ._. 
'_GE B_NP1 yielded_VVD to_II this_DD1 threat_NN1 and_CC lawfully_RR terminated_VVN C_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 contract_VV0 of_IO employment_NN1 ._. 
Owing_II21 to_II22 the_AT provisions_NN2 of_IO the_AT Trade_NN1 Disputes_NN2 Act_VV0 1906_MC C_ZZ1 could_VM not_XX rely_VVI upon_II a_AT1 simple_JJ conspiracy_NN1 to_TO injure_VVI but_CCB in_II the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP it_PPH1 was_VBDZ held_VVN that_CST he_PPHS1 was_VBDZ entitled_VVN to_TO succeed_VVI on_II the_AT ground_NN1 of_IO intimidation_NN1 ._. 
The_AT House_NN1 held_VVD ,_, agreeing_VVG with_IW the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 ,_, that_CST there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 tort_NN1 of_IO intimidation_NN1 ,_, but_CCB they_PPHS2 also_RR held_VVN ,_, reversing_VVG the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 ,_, that_CST the_AT tort_NN1 extends_VVZ to_II threats_NN2 by_II A_ZZ1 to_TO break_VVI his_APPGE contract_NN1 with_IW B_ZZ1 and_CC is_VBZ not_XX confined_VVN to_II threats_NN2 of_IO criminal_NN1 or_CC tortious_JJ conduct_NN1 ._. 
The_AT essence_NN1 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 lies_VVZ in_II the_AT coercion_NN1 of_IO B_ZZ1 ,_, through_II whom_PNQO A_AT1 intentionally_RR inflicts_VVZ damage_NN1 upon_II C_NP1 ,_, but_CCB obviously_RR the_AT law_NN1 can_VM not_XX hold_VVI every_AT1 form_NN1 of_IO coercion_NN1 to_TO be_VBI wrongful_JJ ._. 
If_CS A_ZZ1 tells_VVZ his_APPGE grown-up_JJ son_NN1 ,_, B_ZZ1 ,_, that_CST he_PPHS1 will_VM stop_VVI B_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 allowance_NN1 if_CS B_ZZ1 marries_VVZ C_NP1 ,_, A_ZZ1 may_VM succeed_VVI ,_, as_CSA is_VBZ no_RR21 doubt_RR22 his_APPGE intention_NN1 ,_, in_II depriving_VVG C_ZZ1 of_IO a_AT1 profitable_JJ marriage_NN1 ,_, but_CCB he_PPHS1 commits_VVZ no_AT tort_NN1 against_II her_PPHO1 ,_, for_CS he_PPHS1 is_VBZ perfectly_RR entitled_VVN to_TO stop_VVI B_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 allowance_NN1 for_IF any_DD reason_NN1 ._. 
The_AT law_NN1 has_VHZ therefore_RR adopted_VVN the_AT natural_JJ dividing_JJ line_NN1 between_II what_DDQ is_VBZ lawful_JJ and_CC what_DDQ is_VBZ unlawful_JJ as_II21 against_II22 B_ZZ1 ,_, the_AT person_NN1 threatened_VVD ._. 
The_AT significance_NN1 of_IO Rookes_NP2 v._II Barnard_NP1 was_VBDZ that_CST it_PPH1 made_VVD it_PPH1 clear_JJ that_CST a_AT1 threat_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 was_VBDZ unlawful_JJ for_IF this_DD1 purpose_NN1 but_CCB the_AT criticism_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN made_VVN (_( and_CC this_DD1 indeed_RR was_VBDZ the_AT opinion_NN1 of_IO the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 )_) that_CST if_CS intimidation_NN1 is_VBZ extended_VVN to_II threats_NN2 to_TO break_VVI contracts_NN2 '_GE it_PPH1 would_VM overturn_VVI or_CC outflank_VVI some_DD elementary_JJ principles_NN2 of_IO contract_NN1 law_NN1 ,_, '_GE notably_RR the_AT doctrine_NN1 of_IO privity_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ holds_VVZ that_CST one_PN1 who_PNQS is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 party_NN1 to_II a_AT1 contract_NN1 can_VM not_XX found_VVN a_AT1 claim_NN1 upon_II it_PPH1 or_CC sue_VV0 for_IF breach_NN1 of_IO it_PPH1 ._. 
Two_MC answers_NN2 have_VH0 been_VBN made_VVN to_II the_AT privity_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 objection_NN1 ._. 
First_MD ,_, it_PPH1 can_VM be_VBI said_VVN not_XX merely_RR that_CST C_ZZ1 does_VDZ not_XX sue_VVI for_IF breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 between_II A_ZZ1 and_CC B_ZZ1 ,_, but_CCB that_DD1 his_APPGE cause_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 actually_RR depends_VVZ upon_II the_AT contract_NN1 not_XX having_VHG been_VBN broken_VVN ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ only_RR because_CS B_ZZ1 yields_VVZ to_II A_ZZ1 's_VBZ threat_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 might_VM be_VBI broken_VVN that_CST C_ZZ1 suffers_VVZ damage_NN1 at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
If_CS B_ZZ1 does_VDZ not_XX yield_VVI and_CC the_AT contract_NN1 is_VBZ broken_VVN ,_, then_RT A_ZZ1 's_VBZ threat_NN1 has_VHZ not_XX caused_VVN C_NP1 to_TO suffer_VVI loss_NN1 ._. 
And_CC if_CS it_PPH1 be_VBI objected_VVN that_CST A_ZZ1 may_VM act_VVI first_MD (_( against_II B_ZZ1 )_) and_CC explain_VV0 why_RRQ afterwards_RT ,_, whereupon_CS B_ZZ1 acts_VVZ to_II C_ZZ1 's_VBZ detriment_NN1 ,_, the_AT answer_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX A_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 act_VV0 which_DDQ has_VHZ caused_VVN C_ZZ1 's_VBZ loss_NN1 but_CCB the_AT implied_JJ threat_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 will_VM be_VBI repeated_VVN ._. 
Alternatively_RR it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI said_VVN bluntly_RR that_CST in_II all_DB cases_NN2 of_IO intimidation_NN1 ,_, whatever_DDQV the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO the_AT threatened_JJ act_NN1 ,_, C_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 cause_VV0 of_IO action_NN1 is_VBZ wholly_RR independent_JJ of_IO B_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 ._. 
C_NP1 founds_VVZ not_XX upon_II the_AT wrong_JJ ,_, if_CS any_DD ,_, done_VDN to_II B_ZZ1 but_CCB on_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST A_ZZ1 has_VHZ set_VVN out_RP to_TO injure_VVI him_PPHO1 by_II the_AT use_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 unlawful_JJ weapon_NN1 :_: '_" I_PPIS1 can_VM see_VVI no_AT difference_NN1 in_II principle_NN1 between_II a_AT1 threat_NN1 to_TO break_VVI a_AT1 contract_NN1 and_CC a_AT1 threat_NN1 to_TO commit_VVI a_AT1 tort_NN1 ._. 
If_CS a_AT1 third_MD party_NN1 could_VM not_XX sue_VVI for_IF damage_NN1 caused_VVN to_II him_PPHO1 by_II the_AT former_DA I_ZZ1 can_VM see_VVI no_AT reason_NN1 why_RRQ he_PPHS1 should_VM be_VBI entitled_VVN to_TO sue_VVI for_IF damage_NN1 caused_VVN to_II him_PPHO1 by_II the_AT latter_DA ._. 
A_AT1 person_NN1 is_VBZ no_AT more_RRR entitled_VVN to_TO sue_VVI in_II31 respect_II32 of_II33 loss_NN1 which_DDQ he_PPHS1 suffers_VVZ by_II31 reason_II32 of_II33 a_AT1 tort_NN1 committed_VVN against_II someone_PN1 else_RR than_CSN he_PPHS1 is_VBZ entitled_VVN to_TO sue_VVI in_II31 respect_II32 of_II33 loss_NN1 which_DDQ he_PPHS1 suffers_VVZ by_II31 reason_II32 of_II33 breach_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 contract_NN1 to_II which_DDQ he_PPHS1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 party_NN1 ._. 
What_DDQ he_PPHS1 sues_VVZ for_IF in_II each_DD1 case_NN1 is_VBZ loss_NN1 caused_VVN to_II him_PPHO1 by_II the_AT use_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 unlawful_JJ weapon_NN1 against_II him_PPHO1 intimidation_NN1 of_IO another_DD1 person_NN1 by_II unlawful_JJ means_NN ._. 
'_GE The_AT second_MD approach_NN1 does_VDZ more_DAR than_CSN answer_VV0 the_AT privity_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 objection_NN1 :_: it_PPH1 refutes_VVZ its_APPGE basic_JJ premise_NN1 ._. 
The_AT point_NN1 is_58 '_GE that_CST the_AT '_GE weapon_NN1 ,_, '_" i.e._REX the_AT means_NN ,_, which_DDQ the_AT defendant_NN1 uses_VVZ to_TO inflict_VVI loss_NN1 on_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ,_, may_VM be_VBI unlawful_JJ because_CS it_PPH1 involves_VVZ conduct_NN1 wrongful_JJ towards_II a_AT1 third_MD party_NN1 ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ no_AT reason_NN1 in_II principle_NN1 why_RRQ such_DA wrongful_JJ conduct_NN1 should_VM include_VVI torts_NN2 and_CC not_XX breaches_NN2 of_IO contract_NN1 ._. 
One_PN1 might_VM argue_VVI about_II whether_CSW it_PPH1 is_VBZ expedient_JJ for_IF the_AT law_NN1 to_TO forbid_VVI the_AT use_NN1 of_IO such_DA acts_NN2 as_CSA a_AT1 means_NN of_IO causing_VVG loss_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT privity_NN1 doctrine_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 red_JJ herring_NN ._. 
'_" If_CSW one_PN1 asks_VVZ why_RRQ the_AT law_NN1 should_VM draw_VVI the_AT line_NN1 at_II threats_NN2 of_IO breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 and_CC not_XX include_VV0 within_II the_AT tort_NN1 of_IO intimidation_NN1 some_DD threats_NN2 against_II B_ZZ1 even_CS21 though_CS22 the_AT acts_NN2 threatened_VVN are_VBR not_XX strictly_RR unlawful_JJ ,_, the_AT answer_NN1 can_VM lie_VVI only_RR in_II the_AT structure_NN1 of_IO the_AT law_NN1 ._. 
There_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 legal_JJ '_GE chasm_NN1 '_GE between_II ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, not_XX entering_VVG into_II a_AT1 contract_NN1 and_CC breach_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 existing_JJ contract_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ will_VM not_XX easily_RR be_VBI bridged_VVN ._. 
It_PPH1 must_VM ,_, however_RR ,_, be_VBI admitted_VVN that_CST the_AT above_JJ argument_NN1 ,_, to_II some_DD extent_NN1 ,_, depends_VVZ upon_II a_AT1 '_GE general_NN1 '_GE or_CC even_RR expansive_JJ approach_NN1 to_II unlawful_JJ means_NN in_II intimidation_NN1 and_CC in_II the_AT economic_JJ torts_NN2 as_II a_AT1 whole_NN1 ._. 
As_II a_AT1 result_NN1 of_IO the_AT decision_NN1 of_IO the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP in_II Lonrho_NP1 Ltd._JJ v._II Shell_NN1 Petroleum_NN1 Co_NN1 ._. 
Ltd_JJ ._. 
(_( No._NN1 2_MC )_) it_PPH1 is_VBZ possible_JJ (_( though_CS by_RR31 no_RR32 means_RR33 certain_JJ )_) that_DD1 threat_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 breach_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 penal_JJ statute_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX amount_NN1 to_II unlawful_JJ means_NN for_IF the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO intimidation_NN1 unless_CS the_AT statute_NN1 itself_PPX1 gives_VVZ rise_NN1 to_II a_AT1 civil_JJ remedy_NN1 ._. 
If_CS so_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ perhaps_RR surprising_JJ that_CST a_AT1 threat_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 mere_JJ breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 should_VM give_VVI rise_NN1 to_II liability_NN1 ._. 
Two-party_JJ intimidation_NN1 There_EX is_VBZ little_RR direct_JJ authority_NN1 on_II the_AT position_NN1 where_RRQ A_ZZ1 threatens_VVZ B_ZZ1 with_IW an_AT1 unlawful_JJ act_NN1 and_CC thereby_RR intentionally_RR causes_VVZ B_NP1 to_TO act_VVI (_( or_CC refrain_VV0 from_II acting_VVG )_) in_II a_AT1 way_NN1 which_DDQ causes_VVZ loss_NN1 to_II B_ZZ1 himself_PPX1 ._. 
Nevertheless_RR the_AT general_JJ opinion_NN1 seems_VVZ to_TO be_VBI that_CST A_ZZ1 commits_VVZ a_AT1 tort_NN1 ,_, certainly_RR where_CS his_APPGE threat_NN1 is_VBZ of_IO violence_NN1 ,_, and_CC also_RR ,_, since_CS Rookes_NN2 v._II Barnard_NP1 ,_, where_CS the_AT threat_NN1 is_VBZ of_IO any_DD unlawful_JJ act_NN1 within_II the_AT meaning_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 case_NN1 ._. 
On_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, in_II J._NP1 T._NP1 Stratford_NP1 &amp;_CC Son_NN1 Ltd._JJ v._II Lindley_NP1 Lord_NNB Reid_NP1 said_VVD ,_, '_" A_ZZ1 case_NN1 where_CS a_AT1 defendant_NN1 presents_VVZ to_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 the_AT alternative_NN1 of_IO doing_VDG what_DDQ the_AT defendant_NN1 wants_VVZ him_PPHO1 to_TO do_VDI or_CC suffering_JJ loss_NN1 which_DDQ the_AT defendant_NN1 can_VM cause_VVI him_PPHO1 to_TO incur_VVI is_VBZ not_XX necessarily_RR in_II pari_NN2 casu_NN1 and_CC may_VM involve_VVI questions_NN2 which_DDQ can_VM not_XX arise_VVI where_RRQ there_EX is_VBZ intimidation_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 third_MD person_NN1 ._. 
'_GE The_AT problems_NN2 centre_NN1 round_II the_AT effect_NN1 in_II the_AT two-party_JJ situation_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 threat_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 ._. 
First_MD ,_, in_II the_AT two-party_JJ situation_NN1 there_EX is_VBZ normally_RR a_AT1 remedy_NN1 already_RR available_JJ to_II B_ZZ1 ,_, while_CS in_II the_AT three-party_JJ situation_NN1 ,_, if_CS C_ZZ1 can_VM not_XX sue_VVI for_IF intimidation_NN1 ,_, he_PPHS1 can_VM not_XX sue_VVI at_RR21 all_RR22 ._. 
If_CS B_ZZ1 is_VBZ threatened_VVN with_IW a_AT1 breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 he_PPHS1 may_VM be_VBI able_JK to_TO treat_VVI the_AT contract_NN1 as_CSA repudiated_VVN and_CC sue_VVI for_IF anticipatory_JJ breach_NN1 or_CC ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, he_PPHS1 may_VM await_VVI the_AT breach_NN1 and_CC then_RT sue_VV0 for_IF damages_NN2 ._. 
In_II fact_NN1 ,_, the_AT balance_NN1 of_IO advantage_NN1 would_VM seem_VVI to_TO lie_VVI in_II holding_VVG that_CST where_CS A_ZZ1 threatens_VVZ B_ZZ1 with_IW a_AT1 breach_NN1 of_IO his_APPGE contract_NN1 with_IW B_ZZ1 ,_, B_ZZ1 should_VM be_VBI restricted_VVN to_II his_APPGE contractual_JJ remedies_NN2 ._. 
The_AT law_NN1 should_VM not_XX encourage_VVI B_ZZ1 to_TO yield_VVI to_II the_AT threat_NN1 but_CCB should_VM seek_VVI to_TO persuade_VVI him_PPHO1 to_TO resist_VVI it_PPH1 ._. 
In_II some_DD cases_NN2 he_PPHS1 may_VM be_VBI able_JK to_TO obtain_VVI an_AT1 injunction_NN1 to_TO restrain_VVI the_AT breach_NN1 and_CC in_II any_DD case_NN1 he_PPHS1 will_VM be_VBI adequately_RR compensated_VVN by_II his_APPGE remedy_NN1 in_II damages_NN2 for_IF breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 as_CSA his_APPGE damage_NN1 can_VM scarcely_RR be_VBI other_II21 than_II22 financial_JJ ._. 
If_CS B_ZZ1 is_VBZ threatened_VVN with_IW a_AT1 tort_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, equally_RR true_JJ that_CST he_PPHS1 may_VM bring_VVI an_AT1 action_NN1 for_IF damages_NN2 if_CS the_AT tort_NN1 is_VBZ committed_VVN or_CC bring_VV0 an_AT1 action_NN1 for_IF a_AT1 quia_NN1 timet_NN1 injunction_NN1 first_MD ,_, but_CCB ,_, especially_RR where_CS the_AT threat_NN1 is_VBZ of_IO violence_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ perhaps_RR less_RGR realistic_JJ to_TO say_VVI that_CST these_DD2 legal_JJ remedies_NN2 afford_VV0 him_PPHO1 adequate_JJ protection_NN1 against_II the_AT consequences_NN2 of_IO resistance_NN1 ._. 
From_II the_AT point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 of_IO policy_NN1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, there_EX is_VBZ much_DA1 to_TO be_VBI said_VVN for_IF the_AT view_NN1 that_CST no_AT independent_JJ tort_NN1 is_VBZ committed_VVN when_CS all_DB that_DD1 is_VBZ threatened_VVN ,_, in_II the_AT two-party_JJ situation_NN1 ,_, is_VBZ a_AT1 breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 ,_, though_CS there_EX is_VBZ not_XX very_RG much_DA1 authority_NN1 for_IF such_DA a_AT1 proposition_NN1 ._. 
Secondly_RR ,_, since_CS Rookes_NN2 v._II Barnard_NP1 there_EX has_VHZ been_VBN considerable_JJ development_NN1 in_II the_AT contractual_JJ context_NN1 of_IO the_AT doctrine_NN1 of_IO '_GE economic_JJ duress_NN1 ,_, '_GE and_CC in_II this_DD1 context_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ clear_JJ that_CST although_CS a_AT1 threat_NN1 to_TO break_VVI a_AT1 contract_NN1 is_58 '_GE illegitimate_JJ '_" it_PPH1 will_VM not_XX amount_NN1 to_II duress_NN1 unless_CS it_PPH1 goes_VVZ beyond_II commercial_JJ pressure_NN1 and_CC amounts_VVZ to_II '_GE coercion_NN1 of_IO the_AT will_NN1 ._. 
'_GE In_II Pao_NP1 On_II v._NNU Lau_NP1 Yiu_NP1 A_ZZ1 threatened_VVD that_CST unless_CS B_ZZ1 agreed_VVD to_TO vary_VVI an_AT1 existing_JJ contract_NN1 between_II them_PPHO2 by_II giving_VVG A_ZZ1 a_AT1 guarantee_NN1 against_II loss_NN1 ,_, A_ZZ1 would_VM not_XX fulfil_VVI his_APPGE side_NN1 of_IO the_AT agreement_NN1 ._. 
A_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 action_VV0 on_II the_AT guarantee_NN1 succeeded_VVN because_CS ,_, although_CS B_ZZ1 had_VHD acceded_VVN to_II the_AT demand_NN1 because_II21 of_II22 fears_NN2 of_IO delay_NN1 in_II litigation_NN1 and_CC loss_NN1 of_IO public_JJ confidence_NN1 ,_, the_AT pressure_NN1 fell_VVD short_JJ of_IO coercion_NN1 ._. 
Though_CS intimidation_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX discussed_VVN in_II the_AT case_NN1 it_PPH1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI that_CST B_ZZ1 could_VM have_VHI avoided_VVN the_AT binding_JJ nature_NN1 of_IO the_AT contract_NN1 by_II the_AT simple_JJ device_NN1 of_IO counterclaiming_VVG for_IF damages_NN2 for_IF intimidation_NN1 and_CC it_PPH1 seems_VVZ therefore_RR that_DD1 for_IF the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO intimidation_NN1 the_AT plaintiff_NN1 should_VM be_VBI required_VVN to_TO show_VVI unlawful_JJ coercion_NN1 at_RR21 least_RR22 of_IO such_DA a_AT1 degree_NN1 as_CSA would_VM enable_VVI him_PPHO1 to_TO avoid_VVI a_AT1 contract_NN1 ._. 
If_CS there_EX are_VBR any_DD cases_NN2 in_II which_DDQ the_AT victim_NN1 of_IO unfair_JJ pressure_NN1 may_VM avoid_VVI a_AT1 contract_NN1 even_CS21 though_CS22 the_AT threat_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX of_IO unlawful_JJ action_NN1 ,_, there_EX seems_VVZ no_AT possibility_NN1 of_IO any_DD concurrent_JJ tort_NN1 liability_NN1 ._. 
CONSPIRACY_NN1 Though_CS our_APPGE early_JJ law_NN1 knew_VVD a_AT1 writ_NN1 of_IO conspiracy_NN1 ,_, this_DD1 was_VBDZ restricted_VVN to_TO abuse_VVI of_IO legal_JJ procedure_NN1 and_CC the_AT action_NN1 on_II the_AT case_NN1 in_II the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO conspiracy_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ came_VVD into_II fashion_NN1 in_II the_AT reign_NN1 of_IO Elizabeth_NP1 I_MC1 ,_, developed_VVN into_II the_AT modern_JJ tort_NN1 of_IO malicious_JJ prosecution_NN1 ._. 
Conspiracy_NN1 as_II a_AT1 crime_NN1 was_VBDZ developed_VVN by_II the_AT Star_NN1 Chamber_NN1 during_II the_AT seventeenth_MD century_NNT1 and_CC ,_, when_CS taken_VVN over_RP by_II the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 courts_NN2 ,_, came_VVD to_TO be_VBI regarded_VVN by_II them_PPHO2 as_II not_XX only_RR a_AT1 crime_NN1 but_CCB also_RR as_CSA capable_JJ of_IO giving_VVG rise_NN1 to_II civil_JJ liability_NN1 provided_CS damage_NN1 resulted_VVN to_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ._. 
As_II a_AT1 tort_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, it_PPH1 was_VBDZ little_RR developed_VVN until_CS the_AT second_MD half_NN1 of_IO the_AT nineteenth_MD century_NNT1 and_CC the_AT law_NN1 remained_VVD obscure_JJ until_CS the_AT decision_NN1 of_IO the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP in_II Crofter_NP1 Hand-Woven_NN1 Harris_NP1 Tweed_NN1 Co_NN1 ._. 
Ltd._JJ v._II Veitch_NP1 ._. 
Conspiracy_NN1 remains_VVZ a_AT1 crime_NN1 as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 a_AT1 tort_NN1 ,_, but_CCB the_AT scope_NN1 of_IO the_AT crime_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN curtailed_VVN by_II statute_NN1 so_CS21 that_CS22 ,_, broadly_RR speaking_VVG ,_, the_AT only_JJ conspiracies_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR now_RT indictable_JJ are_VBR those_DD2 to_TO commit_VVI a_AT1 substantive_JJ criminal_JJ offence_NN1 ,_, to_TO defraud_VVI or_CC to_II corrupt_JJ public_JJ morals_NN2 or_CC outrage_NN1 public_NN1 decency_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Act_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, has_VHZ no_AT effect_NN1 on_II civil_JJ liability_NN1 ._. 
In_II fact_NN1 ,_, even_RR aside_II21 from_II22 the_AT Act_NN1 the_AT tort_NN1 and_CC the_AT crime_NN1 have_VH0 cut_VVN loose_JJ from_II whatever_DDQV common_JJ origin_NN1 they_PPHS2 had_VHD ._. 
The_AT tort_NN1 takes_VVZ two_MC forms_NN2 according_II21 to_II22 whether_CSW31 or_CSW32 not_CSW33 unlawful_JJ means_NN are_VBR used_VVN ,_, though_CS the_AT decision_NN1 of_IO the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP in_II Lonrho_NP1 Ltd._JJ v._II Shell_NN1 Petroleum_NN1 Co_NN1 ._. 
Ltd_JJ ._. 
(_( No._NN1 2_MC )_) may_VM have_VHI greatly_RR reduced_VVN the_AT importance_NN1 of_IO '_GE unlawful_JJ means_NN conspiracy_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Indeed_RR ,_, the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 has_VHZ indicated_VVN that_CST the_AT law_NN1 laid_VVN down_RP in_II Lonrho_NP1 has_VHZ effectively_RR resulted_VVN in_II the_AT unlawful_JJ means_NN category_NN1 no_RR21 longer_RR22 existing_JJ in_II any_DD meaningful_JJ form_NN1 ;_; but_CCB until_CS the_AT law_NN1 is_VBZ finally_RR clarified_VVN by_II the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP it_PPH1 seems_VVZ justifiable_JJ to_TO continue_VVI to_TO speak_VVI of_IO two_MC forms_NN2 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 ._. 
Conspiracy_NN1 to_TO injure_VVI It_PPH1 was_VBDZ firmly_RR established_VVN in_II Crofter_NP1 Hand-Woven_NN1 Harris_NP1 Tweed_NN1 Co_NN1 ._. 
Ltd._JJ v._II Veitch_NN1 that_CST if_CS there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 combination_NN1 of_IO persons_NN2 whose_DDQGE purpose_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO cause_VVI damage_NN1 to_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 purpose_NN1 may_VM render_VVI unlawful_JJ acts_NN2 which_DDQ would_VM otherwise_RR be_VBI lawful_JJ ._. 
The_AT production_NN1 of_IO Harris_NP1 Tweed_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 industry_NN1 of_IO the_AT Isle_NNL1 of_IO Lewis_NP1 ._. 
Originally_RR the_AT yarn_NN1 for_IF the_AT cloth_NN1 was_VBDZ hand-spun_JJ from_II wool_NN1 by_II the_AT crofters_NN2 of_IO Lewis_NP1 and_CC was_VBDZ wholly_RR produced_VVN in_II the_AT Isle_NN1 ._. 
By_II 1930_MC ,_, handspinning_VVG of_IO wool_NN1 had_VHD become_VVN commercially_RR impracticable_JJ and_CC thenceforth_RR many_DA2 weavers_NN2 in_II Lewis_NP1 imported_JJ yarn_NN1 from_II the_AT mainland_NN1 ._. 
Five_MC mill_NN1 owners_NN2 in_II Lewis_NP1 nevertheless_RR spun_VVN yarn_NN1 woven_VVN by_II the_AT crofters_NN2 ._. 
These_DD2 mill_NN1 owners_NN2 alleged_VVD that_DD1 cloth_NN1 woven_VVN on_II Lewis_NP1 from_II mainland_NN1 yarn_NN1 could_VM be_VBI sold_VVN much_RR more_RGR cheaply_RR than_CSN cloth_NN1 made_VVN from_II yarn_NN1 spun_VVN in_II Lewis_NP1 ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ therefore_RR in_II their_APPGE interest_NN1 to_TO get_VVI a_AT1 minimum_JJ price_NN1 fixed_VVN for_IF the_AT cloth_NN1 ._. 
Of_IO the_AT workers_NN2 in_II their_APPGE mills_NN2 90_MC per_NNU21 cent._NNU22 belonged_VVD to_II the_AT T.G.W.U._NP1 and_CC the_AT Lewis_NP1 dockers_NN2 were_VBDR also_RR members_NN2 of_IO it_PPH1 ._. 
The_AT union_NN1 ,_, with_IW the_AT object_NN1 of_IO getting_VVG all_DB mill_NN1 workers_NN2 to_TO be_VBI members_NN2 and_CC of_IO increasing_JJ wages_NN2 ,_, approached_VVD the_AT mill_NN1 owners_NN2 ,_, who_PNQS replied_VVD that_CST they_PPHS2 could_VM not_XX raise_VVI the_AT wages_NN2 because_II21 of_II22 the_AT competition_NN1 of_IO the_AT crofters_NN2 who_PNQS wove_VVD imported_JJ yarn_NN1 ._. 
The_AT union_NN1 officials_NN2 then_RT put_VV0 an_AT1 embargo_NN1 on_II the_AT importation_NN1 of_IO yarn_NN1 by_II ordering_VVG Lewis_NP1 dockers_NN2 not_XX to_TO handle_VVI such_DA yarn_NN1 ._. 
They_PPHS2 obeyed_VVD (_( without_IW breaking_VVG any_DD contract_NN1 )_) and_CC thus_RR injured_VVD the_AT trade_NN1 of_IO seven_MC small_JJ producers_NN2 of_IO tweed_NN1 who_PNQS used_VVD imported_JJ yarn_NN1 and_CC who_PNQS sued_VVD the_AT officials_NN2 for_IF conspiracy_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 must_VM be_VBI stressed_VVN at_II the_AT outset_NN1 ,_, lest_CS the_AT importance_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 form_NN1 of_IO liability_NN1 be_VBI exaggerated_VVN ,_, that_CST the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 lost_VVD their_APPGE case_NN1 because_CS the_AT predominant_JJ purpose_NN1 of_IO the_AT embargo_NN1 was_VBDZ to_TO promote_VVI the_AT interests_NN2 of_IO the_AT union_NN1 members_NN2 rather_II21 than_II22 to_TO injure_VVI the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 ,_, but_CCB their_APPGE Lordships_NN2 made_VVD it_PPH1 clear_JJ that_CST if_CS the_AT predominant_JJ purpose_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 combination_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO injure_VVI another_DD1 in_II his_APPGE trade_NN1 or_CC business_NN1 or_CC in_II his_APPGE other_JJ legitimate_JJ interests_NN2 then_RT ,_, if_CS damage_NN1 results_NN2 ,_, the_AT tort_NN1 of_IO conspiracy_NN1 exists_VVZ ._. 
The_AT Crofter_NP1 principle_NN1 was_VBDZ applied_VVN by_II the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 in_II Gulf_NP1 Oil_NN1 (_( Great_NP1 Britain_NP1 )_) Ltd._JJ v._II Page_NN1 in_II granting_VVG an_AT1 interlocutory_JJ injunction_NN1 against_II a_AT1 combination_NN1 to_TO publish_VVI a_AT1 statement_NN1 defamatory_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 even_CS21 though_CS22 the_AT statement_NN1 was_VBDZ admitted_VVN to_TO be_VBI true_JJ and_CC there_EX would_VM ,_, therefore_RR ,_, have_VH0 been_VBN an_AT1 absolute_JJ defence_NN1 to_II an_AT1 action_NN1 for_IF libel._NNU (_( 1_MC1 )_) Purpose_NN1 The_AT object_NN1 or_CC purpose_NN1 of_IO the_AT combination_NN1 must_VM be_VBI to_TO cause_VVI damage_NN1 to_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ._. 
The_AT test_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX what_DDQ the_AT defendants_NN2 contemplated_VVN as_II a_AT1 likely_JJ or_CC even_RR an_AT1 inevitable_JJ consequence_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE conduct_NN1 ;_; it_PPH1 is_58 '_GE what_DDQ is_VBZ in_II truth_NN1 the_AT object_NN1 in_II the_AT minds_NN2 of_IO the_AT combiners_NN2 when_CS they_PPHS2 acted_VVD as_CSA they_PPHS2 did_VDD ?_? 
'_GE Malice_NN1 in_II the_AT sense_NN1 of_IO malevolence_NN1 ,_, spite_NN1 or_CC ill_JJ will_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX essential_JJ for_IF liability_NN1 ;_; what_DDQ is_VBZ required_VVN is_VBZ that_CST the_AT combiners_NN2 should_VM have_VHI acted_VVN in_BCL21 order_BCL22 that_CST (_( not_XX with_IW the_AT result_NN1 that_CST ,_, even_RR the_AT foreseeable_JJ result_NN1 )_) the_AT plaintiff_NN1 should_VM suffer_VVI damage_NN1 ._. 
If_CS they_PPHS2 did_VDD not_XX act_VVI in_BCL21 order_BCL22 that_CST the_AT plaintiff_NN1 should_VM suffer_VVI damage_NN1 they_PPHS2 are_VBR not_XX liable_JJ ,_, however_RGQV selfish_JJ their_APPGE attitude_NN1 and_CC however_RR inevitable_JJ the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE damage_NN1 may_VM have_VHI been_VBN ._. 
Cases_NN2 of_IO mixed_JJ motive_NN1 are_VBR common_JJ enough_RR in_II individuals_NN2 ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ obvious_JJ that_CST a_AT1 combination_NN1 of_IO persons_NN2 may_VM have_VHI more_DAR than_CSN one_MC1 purpose_NN1 ._. 
Where_CS this_DD1 is_VBZ so_RR the_AT question_NN1 must_VM be_VBI asked_VVN ,_, what_DDQ was_VBDZ the_AT real_JJ or_CC predominant_JJ purpose_NN1 of_IO the_AT combination_NN1 ,_, and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ to_TO be_VBI answered_VVN broadly_RR as_CSA by_II a_AT1 jury_NN1 or_CC judge_NN1 of_IO fact_NN1 ._. 
Difficulty_NN1 may_VM arise_VVI where_RRQ the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO the_AT various_JJ parties_NN2 to_II the_AT combination_NN1 are_VBR different_JJ ._. 
If_CS each_DD1 party_NN1 has_VHZ his_APPGE own_DA private_JJ end_NN1 to_TO gain_VVI ,_, but_CCB yet_RR the_AT joint_JJ aim_NN1 is_VBZ no_AT more_DAR than_CSN a_AT1 desire_NN1 for_IF prosperity_NN1 or_CC peace_NN1 in_II industry_NN1 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ no_AT tort_NN1 ._. 
On_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, if_CS one_MC1 of_IO the_AT parties_NN2 is_VBZ actuated_VVN merely_RR by_II hatred_NN1 or_CC vindictive_JJ spite_NN1 he_PPHS1 may_VM be_VBI liable_JJ and_CC if_CS the_AT others_NN2 are_VBR aware_JJ of_IO this_DD1 and_CC lend_VV0 him_PPHO1 their_APPGE assistance_NN1 they_PPHS2 too_RR may_VM thereby_RR become_VVI participants_NN2 in_II the_AT wrong_JJ ._. 
Without_IW such_DA knowledge_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, there_EX can_VM be_VBI no_AT conspiracy_NN1 ,_, since_CS the_AT essence_NN1 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 unlawful_JJ combination_NN1 ._. 
Another_DD1 way_NN1 of_IO expressing_VVG the_AT central_JJ requirement_NN1 of_IO conspiracy_NN1 to_TO injure_VVI is_VBZ to_TO say_VVI that_CST the_AT law_NN1 is_VBZ concerned_JJ with_IW the_AT distinction_NN1 between_II legitimate_JJ and_CC illegitimate_JJ purposes_NN2 ,_, for_IF the_AT former_DA will_VM legalise_VVI the_AT infliction_NN1 of_IO the_AT most_RGT catastrophic_JJ and_CC inevitable_JJ harm_NN1 to_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE business_NN1 ._. 
The_AT legitimate_JJ purpose_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 combination_NN1 is_VBZ sometimes_RT spoken_VVN of_IO as_CSA its_APPGE justification_NN1 (_( and_CC the_AT expression_NN1 is_VBZ convenient_JJ )_) but_CCB this_DD1 does_VDZ not_XX mean_VVI that_CST a_AT1 combination_NN1 to_TO do_VDI an_AT1 act_NN1 harmful_JJ to_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 is_VBZ necessarily_RR actionable_JJ unless_CS the_AT defendants_NN2 prove_VV0 that_CST it_PPH1 was_VBDZ justified_VVN ._. 
The_AT burden_NN1 of_IO proof_NN1 lies_VVZ with_IW the_AT plaintiff_NN1 throughout_RL ._. 
On_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, there_EX may_VM obviously_RR be_VBI cases_NN2 where_RRQ the_AT plaintiff_NN1 establishes_VVZ a_AT1 prima_JJ21 facie_JJ22 case_NN1 by_II proving_VVG that_CST he_PPHS1 suffered_VVD damage_NN1 from_II acts_NN2 done_VDN in_II combination_NN1 by_II the_AT defendants_NN2 the_AT natural_JJ and_CC probable_JJ outcome_NN1 of_IO which_DDQ was_VBDZ damage_NN1 to_II him_PPHO1 ._. 
The_AT defendants_NN2 may_VM then_RT have_VHI to_TO meet_VVI this_58 '_GE provisional_JJ burden_NN1 '_GE by_II adducing_VVG evidence_NN1 that_CST their_APPGE purpose_NN1 was_VBDZ something_PN1 else_RR and_CC that_CST it_PPH1 was_VBDZ legitimate_JJ ,_, without_IW affecting_VVG the_AT '_GE legal_JJ burden_NN1 '_GE of_IO proof_NN1 ._. 
Precise_JJ definition_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ is_VBZ and_CC is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 legitimate_JJ purpose_NN1 is_VBZ probably_RR not_XX possible_JJ ,_, but_CCB the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST we_PPIS2 live_VV0 in_II a_AT1 competitive_JJ or_CC acquisitive_JJ society_NN1 has_VHZ led_VVN English_JJ law_NN1 ,_, for_IF better_JJR or_CC worse_JJR ,_, to_TO adopt_VVI the_AT test_NN1 of_IO self-interest_NN1 or_CC selfishness_NN1 as_CSA being_VBG capable_JJ of_IO justifying_VVG the_AT deliberate_JJ doing_VDG of_IO lawful_JJ acts_NN2 which_DDQ inflict_VV0 harm_NN1 ._. 
Acts_NN2 done_VDN to_II forward_RL or_CC protect_VV0 the_AT defendants_NN2 '_GE trade_NN1 or_CC business_NN1 interests_NN2 are_VBR clearly_RR justified_VVN ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX essential_JJ that_CST the_AT interest_NN1 promoted_VVN be_VBI a_AT1 material_JJ one_PN1 ._. 
In_II Scala_NP1 Ballroom_NN1 (_( Wolverhampton_NP1 )_) Ltd._JJ v._II Ratcliffe_NP1 the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 refused_VVD to_TO admit_VVI coloured_JJ persons_NN2 to_II their_APPGE ballroom_NN1 but_CCB they_PPHS2 did_VDD allow_VVI coloured_JJ musicians_NN2 to_TO play_VVI in_II the_AT orchestra_NN1 ._. 
The_AT defendants_NN2 were_VBDR members_NN2 of_IO the_AT Musicians_NN2 '_GE Union_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 union_NN1 with_IW many_DA2 coloured_JJ members_NN2 ,_, and_CC they_PPHS2 gave_VVD notice_NN1 to_II the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 that_CST members_NN2 of_IO the_AT union_NN1 would_VM not_XX be_VBI permitted_VVN to_TO play_VVI at_II the_AT ballroom_NN1 so_RG long_RR as_CSA the_AT colour_NN1 bar_NN1 was_VBDZ in_II operation_NN1 ._. 
An_AT1 injunction_NN1 to_TO restrain_VVI them_PPHO2 from_II persuading_VVG their_APPGE members_NN2 not_XX to_TO play_VVI there_EX was_VBDZ refused_VVN ._. 
On_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, in_II Huntley_NP1 v._II Thornton_NP1 damages_NN2 were_VBDR awarded_VVN against_II union_NN1 officials_NN2 whose_DDQGE object_NN1 in_II keeping_VVG the_AT plaintiff_NN1 out_II21 of_II22 work_NN1 was_VBDZ ,_, as_CSA Harman_NP1 J._NP1 found_VVD ,_, to_TO uphold_VVI '_" their_APPGE own_DA ruffled_JJ dignity_NN1 ...._... 
It_PPH1 had_VHD become_VVN a_AT1 question_NN1 of_IO the_AT district_NN1 committee_NN1 's_GE prestige_NN1 ;_; they_PPHS2 were_VBDR determined_VVN to_TO use_VVI any_DD weapon_NN1 ready_JJ to_II their_APPGE hand_NN1 to_TO vindicate_VVI their_APPGE authority_NN1 ,_, and_CC grossly_RR abused_VVN the_AT quite_RG frightening_JJ powers_NN2 at_II their_APPGE command_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Other_JJ examples_NN2 of_IO unlawful_JJ objects_NN2 are_VBR given_VVN by_II their_APPGE Lordships_NN2 in_II the_AT Crofter_NP1 case_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Mere_JJ busybodies_NN2 '_GE are_VBR probably_RR not_XX protected_VVN ,_, nor_CC are_VBR those_DD2 who_PNQS are_VBR induced_VVN to_TO join_VVI a_AT1 combination_NN1 by_II the_AT payment_NN1 of_IO money_NN1 and_CC have_VH0 no_AT other_JJ interest_NN1 to_TO protect_VVI ._. 
A_AT1 combination_NN1 to_TO compel_VVI the_AT plaintiff_NN1 to_TO pay_VVI a_AT1 debt_NN1 is_VBZ apparently_RR unlawful_JJ ,_, but_CCB where_RRQ the_AT object_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO punish_VVI him_PPHO1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ necessary_JJ to_TO distinguish_VVI between_II mere_JJ vindictive_JJ vengeance_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ is_VBZ unlawful_JJ ,_, and_CC the_AT purpose_NN1 of_IO deterring_VVG others_NN2 from_II similarly_RR offending_JJ ,_, which_DDQ apparently_RR is_VBZ not_XX ._. 
If_CS the_AT object_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO increase_VVI the_AT effective_JJ strength_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 trade_NN1 union_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ lawful_JJ ._. 
The_AT fact_NN1 that_CST the_AT damage_NN1 is_VBZ disproportionate_JJ to_II the_AT purpose_NN1 sought_VVD to_TO be_VBI achieved_VVN does_VDZ not_XX itself_PPX1 render_VVI the_AT conspiracy_NN1 actionable_JJ ;_; nor_CC is_VBZ the_AT court_NN1 concerned_JJ with_IW the_AT expediency_NN1 or_CC otherwise_RR of_IO the_AT policy_NN1 adopted_VVN by_II the_AT combiners._NNU (_( 2_MC )_) Combination_NN1 There_EX must_VM be_VBI concerted_JJ action_NN1 between_II two_MC or_CC more_DAR persons_NN2 ,_, which_DDQ includes_VVZ husband_NN1 and_CC wife_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 seems_VVZ that_CST there_EX can_VM be_VBI no_AT conspiracy_NN1 between_II an_AT1 employer_NN1 and_CC his_APPGE employees_NN2 ,_, at_RR21 least_RR22 where_CS they_PPHS2 merely_RR go_VV0 about_II their_APPGE employer_NN1 's_GE business_NN1 ._. 
On_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, there_EX might_VM be_VBI circumstances_NN2 where_RRQ an_AT1 employer_NN1 would_VM be_VBI vicariously_RR liable_JJ for_IF a_AT1 conspiracy_NN1 involving_VVG his_APPGE servants_NN2 provided_VVD the_AT other_JJ requirements_NN2 of_IO that_DD1 form_NN1 of_IO liability_NN1 are_VBR met_VVN ._. 
There_EX may_VM be_VBI a_AT1 conspiracy_NN1 between_II a_AT1 company_NN1 and_CC its_APPGE directors_NN2 ,_, whose_DDQGE knowledge_NN1 and_CC purpose_NN1 may_VM be_VBI imputed_VVN to_II the_AT company._NNU (_( 3_MC )_) Overt_JJ act_NN1 causing_VVG damage_NN1 In_II contrast_NN1 with_IW the_AT crime_NN1 of_IO conspiracy_NN1 ,_, an_AT1 overt_JJ act_NN1 causing_VVG damage_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 essential_JJ element_NN1 of_IO liability_NN1 in_II tort_NN1 ._. 
If_CS ,_, therefore_RR ,_, the_AT acts_NN2 relied_VVN on_II are_VBR incapable_JJ of_IO being_VBG made_VVN part_NN1 of_IO any_DD cause_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 e.g._REX evidence_NN1 given_VVN by_II witnesses_NN2 in_II a_AT1 court_NN1 of_IO law_NN1 then_RT the_AT tort_NN1 can_VM not_XX be_VBI made_VVN out_RP ._. 
A_AT1 sufficient_JJ element_NN1 of_IO damage_NN1 is_VBZ shown_VVN where_CS expenses_NN2 are_VBR necessarily_RR incurred_VVN by_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 in_II investigating_VVG and_CC counteracting_VVG the_AT machinations_NN2 of_IO the_AT defendants_NN2 ._. 
'_GE Unlawful_JJ means_NN '_GE conspiracy_NN1 This_DD1 form_NN1 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 involves_VVZ the_AT use_NN1 of_IO means_NN which_DDQ are_VBR independently_RR unlawful_JJ ,_, though_CS not_XX necessarily_RR tortious_JJ ._. 
For_IF many_DA2 years_NNT2 its_APPGE significance_NN1 was_VBDZ thought_VVN to_TO lie_VVI in_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST ,_, while_CS the_AT combiners_NN2 had_VHD to_TO intend_VVI to_TO do_VDI an_AT1 unlawful_JJ act_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 was_VBDZ not_XX necessary_JJ that_CST their_APPGE purpose_NN1 should_VM be_VBI to_TO injure_VVI the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, this_DD1 may_VM have_VHI been_VBN overturned_VVN by_II the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP in_II Lonrho_NP1 Ltd._JJ v._II Shell_NN1 Petroleum_NN1 Co_NN1 ._. 
Ltd_JJ ._. 
(_( No._NN1 2_MC )_) ._. 
Shell_VV0 and_CC others_NN2 constructed_VVN an_AT1 oil_NN1 refinery_NN1 in_II what_DDQ was_VBDZ then_RT Southern_NP1 Rhodesia_NP1 and_CC Lonrho_NP1 constructed_VVD a_AT1 pipeline_NN1 thereto_RR from_II a_AT1 port_NN1 in_II Mozambique_NP1 ._. 
In_II November_NPM1 1965_MC the_AT government_NN1 of_IO Southern_NP1 Rhodesia_NP1 declared_VVD unilateral_JJ independence_NN1 and_CC the_AT United_NP1 Kingdom_NP1 passed_VVD legislation_NN1 ,_, the_AT '_GE sanctions_NN2 order_VV0 ,_, '_GE making_VVG it_PPH1 a_AT1 criminal_JJ offence_NN1 to_TO supply_VVI oil_NN1 to_II Southern_NP1 Rhodesia_NP1 ._. 
No_AT further_JJR oil_NN1 was_VBDZ shipped_VVN through_II Lonrho_NP1 's_GE pipeline_NN1 ,_, causing_VVG the_AT company_NN1 loss_NN1 of_IO revenue_NN1 ._. 
The_AT facts_NN2 to_TO be_VBI assumed_VVN by_II the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP for_IF the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO the_AT appeal_NN1 were_VBDR that_DD1 Shell_NN1 and_CC others_NN2 had_VHD ,_, in_II breach_NN1 of_IO the_AT sanctions_NN2 order_VV0 ,_, covertly_RR supplied_VVD Southern_NP1 Rhodesia_NP1 with_IW oil_NN1 by_II other_JJ means_NN and_CC thereby_RR prolonged_VVN the_AT state_NN1 of_IO illegal_JJ independence_NN1 and_CC the_AT time_NNT1 during_II which_DDQ Lonrho_NP1 's_GE pipeline_NN1 was_VBDZ out_II21 of_II22 use_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ clear_JJ that_CST the_AT breach_NN1 of_IO the_AT sanctions_NN2 order_NN1 gave_VVD rise_NN1 to_II no_AT action_NN1 in_II tort_NN1 for_IF breach_NN1 of_IO statutory_JJ duty_NN1 and_CC a_AT1 claim_NN1 based_VVN on_II breach_NN1 of_IO the_AT sanctions_NN2 order_VV0 as_58 '_GE unlawful_JJ means_NN '_GE for_IF the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 of_IO interference_NN1 with_IW trade_NN1 failed_VVD ._. 
The_AT case_NN1 was_VBDZ also_RR ,_, however_RR ,_, framed_VVN as_II a_AT1 conspiracy_NN1 between_II Shell_NN1 and_CC others_NN2 to_TO contravene_VVI the_AT sanctions_NN2 order_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 too_RG failed_JJ ,_, on_II the_AT basis_NN1 that_CST in_II unlawful_JJ means_NN conspiracy_NN1 ,_, as_CSA in_II conspiracy_NN1 to_TO injure_VVI ,_, there_EX must_VM be_VBI an_AT1 intent_JJ to_TO injure_VVI the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ,_, and_CC conspiracy_NN1 should_VM not_XX be_VBI extended_JJ '_GE beyond_NN1 acts_VVZ done_VDN in_II execution_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 agreement_NN1 entered_VVN into_II by_II two_MC or_CC more_DAR persons_NN2 for_IF the_AT purpose_NN1 not_XX of_IO protecting_VVG their_APPGE own_DA interests_NN2 but_CCB of_IO injuring_VVG the_AT interests_NN2 of_IO the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Accordingly_RR ,_, since_CS the_AT case_NN1 was_VBDZ to_TO be_VBI decided_VVN on_II the_AT factual_JJ assumption_NN1 that_CST the_AT purpose_NN1 of_IO Shell_NN1 and_CC others_NN2 in_II combining_VVG to_TO contravene_VVI the_AT sanctions_NN2 order_NN1 was_VBDZ to_II forward_RL their_APPGE own_DA commercial_JJ interests_NN2 ,_, not_XX injure_VV0 those_DD2 of_IO Lonrho_NP1 ,_, no_RGQV31 matter_RGQV32 how_RGQV33 likely_JJ or_CC foreseeable_JJ such_DA injury_NN1 might_VM be_VBI ,_, the_AT claim_NN1 in_II conspiracy_NN1 failed_VVD ._. 
The_AT meaning_NN1 of_IO the_AT decision_NN1 in_II Lonrho_NP1 has_VHZ produced_VVN radical_JJ differences_NN2 of_IO opinion_NN1 in_II courts_NN2 here_RL and_CC abroad_RL ._. 
One_MC1 view_NN1 ,_, which_DDQ is_VBZ supported_VVN by_II the_AT judgment_NN1 of_IO Lord_NNB Denning_NP1 M.R._NNB in_II the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 in_II Lonrho_NP1 is_VBZ that_DD1 '_VBZ it_PPH1 is_VBZ sufficient_JJ if_CS the_AT &lsqb;_( unlawful_JJ means_NN &rsqb;_) conspiracy_NN1 is_VBZ aimed_VVN or_CC directed_VVN at_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 and_CC it_PPH1 can_VM reasonably_RR be_VBI foreseen_VVN that_CST it_PPH1 may_VM injure_VVI him_PPHO1 ,_, and_CC does_VDZ in_II fact_NN1 injure_VV0 him_PPHO1 '_GE and_CC the_AT Supreme_JJ Court_NN1 of_IO Canada_NP1 has_VHZ since_RR stated_VVN the_AT law_NN1 in_II similar_JJ terms_NN2 in_II a_AT1 decision_NN1 in_II which_DDQ Lonrho_NP1 was_VBDZ considered_VVN ._. 
This_DD1 would_VM allow_VVI for_IF liability_NN1 where_RRQ ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, A_ZZ1 and_CC B_ZZ1 conspired_VVN by_II unlawful_JJ means_NN with_IW the_AT purpose_NN1 of_IO driving_VVG a_AT1 competitor_NN1 C_ZZ1 out_II21 of_II22 the_AT market_NN1 and_CC thereby_RR monopolising_VVG it_PPH1 ._. 
If_CS such_DA a_AT1 case_NN1 involved_VVD no_AT unlawful_JJ means_NN their_APPGE '_GE purpose_NN1 '_GE would_VM be_VBI treated_VVN as_II the_AT advancement_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE own_DA self-interest_NN1 or_CC ,_, to_TO put_VVI it_PPH1 another_DD1 way_NN1 ,_, their_APPGE object_NN1 in_II removing_VVG C_ZZ1 from_II the_AT market_NN1 would_VM be_VBI legitimate_JJ ._. 
To_TO deny_VVI such_DA legitimacy_NN1 in_II the_AT case_NN1 where_CS unlawful_JJ means_NN were_VBDR used_VVN would_VM still_RR leave_VVI some_DD practical_JJ scope_NN1 for_IF this_DD1 form_NN1 of_IO conspiracy_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 would_VM not_XX mean_VVI that_CST A_ZZ1 and_CC B_ZZ1 are_VBR liable_JJ for_IF conspiracy_NN1 wherever_RRQV they_PPHS2 acted_VVD unlawfully_RR with_IW the_AT foreseeable_JJ consequence_NN1 that_CST C_NP1 suffered_VVD loss_NN1 ,_, for_IF conspiracy_NN1 should_VM not_XX extend_VVI further_RRR than_CSN the_AT other_JJ economic_JJ torts_NN2 (_( for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, interference_NN1 with_IW contract_NN1 by_II unlawful_JJ means_NN )_) where_RRQ the_AT predominant_JJ view_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST this_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX sufficient_JJ ._. 
The_AT plaintiff_NN1 must_VM be_VBI the_AT '_GE target_NN1 '_GE of_IO the_AT combination_NN1 but_CCB if_CS he_PPHS1 is_VBZ ,_, on_II this_DD1 view_NN1 ,_, the_AT advancement_NN1 of_IO the_AT defendants_NN2 '_GE own_DA interests_NN2 does_VDZ not_XX justify_VVI the_AT use_NN1 of_IO unlawful_JJ means_NN ._. 
However_RR ,_, subject_II21 to_II22 further_JJR consideration_NN1 by_II the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP ,_, this_DD1 does_VDZ not_XX now_RT represent_VVI English_JJ law_NN1 ._. 
In_II Metall_NP1 und_NP1 Rohstoff_NP1 v._II Donaldson_NP1 Lufkin_NP1 &amp;_CC Jenrette_NP1 Inc._JJ the_AT allegations_NN2 pleaded_VVN (_( which_DDQ the_AT court_NN1 was_VBDZ required_VVN to_TO assume_VVI to_TO be_VBI true_JJ for_IF the_AT purposes_NN2 of_IO an_AT1 issue_NN1 as_II21 to_II22 service_NN1 out_II21 of_II22 the_AT jurisdiction_NN1 )_) were_VBDR as_CSA follows_VVZ ._. 
Company_NN1 A_ZZ1 ,_, dealers_NN2 on_II the_AT Metal_NN1 Exchange_NN1 ,_, knowingly_RR assisted_VVN an_AT1 employee_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 to_TO engage_VVI in_II fraudulent_JJ trading_NN1 ,_, the_AT result_NN1 of_IO which_DDQ was_VBDZ that_DD1 Company_NN1 A_ZZ1 became_VVD exposed_VVN to_II liabilities_NN2 of_IO more_DAR than_CSN 6.5m_NNU ._. 
To_TO protect_VVI itself_PPX1 ,_, Company_NN1 A_ZZ1 ,_, at_II the_AT instigation_NN1 of_IO Company_NN1 B_ZZ1 ,_, its_APPGE parent_NN1 company_NN1 ,_, falsely_RR asserted_VVD that_CST these_DD2 accounts_NN2 were_VBDR the_AT responsibility_NN1 of_IO the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 and_CC wrongfully_RR seized_VVN certain_JJ metal_NN1 warrants_NN2 belonging_VVG to_II the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 ._. 
The_AT plaintiffs_NN2 obtained_VVN judgment_NN1 for_IF 50m._NNU against_II Company_NN1 A_ZZ1 but_CCB recovered_VVD only_RR 6.7m._NNU since_CS A_ZZ1 was_VBDZ insolvent_JJ ._. 
A_AT1 further_JJR claim_NN1 for_IF ,_, inter_RR21 alia_RR22 ,_, unlawful_JJ means_NN conspiracy_NN1 was_VBDZ brought_VVN against_II Company_NN1 B_ZZ1 but_CCB it_PPH1 was_VBDZ not_XX alleged_VVN that_CST the_AT predominant_JJ purpose_NN1 of_IO the_AT conspiracy_NN1 was_VBDZ to_TO injure_VVI the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 since_CS the_AT defendants_NN2 were_VBDR obviously_RR concerned_JJ to_TO protect_VVI their_APPGE own_DA position_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 ,_, after_CS a_AT1 full_JJ consideration_NN1 of_IO Lonrho_NP1 ,_, held_VVD that_CST the_AT omission_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 allegation_NN1 of_IO intention_NN1 to_TO injure_VVI was_VBDZ fatal_JJ to_II the_AT claim_NN1 ._. 
On_II this_DD1 basis_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ hard_JJ to_TO see_VVI what_DDQ ,_, if_CS anything_PN1 ,_, a_AT1 separate_JJ category_NN1 of_IO unlawful_JJ means_NN conspiracy_NN1 adds_VVZ to_II the_AT law_NN1 and_CC while_CS not_XX perhaps_RR strictly_RR abolished_VVN by_II judicial_JJ fiat_NN1 it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI expected_VVN to_TO fade_VVI away_RL ._. 
Lonrho_NN1 itself_PPX1 is_VBZ authority_NN1 for_IF the_AT view_NN1 that_CST pursuit_NN1 of_IO naked_JJ self-interest_NN1 by_II criminal_JJ means_NN can_VM never_RR amount_NN1 to_II conspiracy_NN1 ._. 
If_CS the_AT wrong_NN1 agreed_VVN on_II itself_PPX1 amounts_VVZ to_II a_AT1 tort_NN1 against_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 perhaps_RR little_RR has_VHZ been_VBN lost_VVN by_II the_AT restriction_NN1 of_IO conspiracy_NN1 ,_, for_IF the_AT combination_NN1 must_VM be_VBI carried_VVN into_II effect_NN1 to_TO cause_VVI damage_NN1 and_CC then_RT the_AT substantive_JJ tort_NN1 is_VBZ committed_VVN ._. 
Certainly_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ sometimes_RT said_VVN that_CST a_AT1 claim_NN1 for_IF conspiracy_NN1 gives_VVZ the_AT plaintiff_NN1 procedural_JJ advantages_NN2 ,_, but_CCB the_AT reality_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 may_VM turn_VVI on_RP how_RGQ far_RR it_PPH1 is_VBZ to_TO be_VBI held_VVN on_II ordinary_JJ principles_NN2 that_CST instigation_NN1 or_CC procurement_NN1 suffices_VVZ to_TO make_VVI a_AT1 person_NN1 who_PNQS does_VDZ not_XX participate_VVI in_II the_AT act_NN1 a_AT1 joint_JJ tortfeasor_NN1 ._. 
The_AT restriction_NN1 of_IO conspiracy_NN1 might_VM seem_VVI to_TO put_VVI the_AT plaintiff_NN1 at_II a_AT1 disadvantage_NN1 if_CS the_AT unlawful_JJ means_NN is_VBZ a_AT1 tort_NN1 against_II a_AT1 third_MD party_NN1 or_CC the_AT breach_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 contract_NN1 to_II which_DDQ the_AT defendant_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 party_NN1 but_CCB this_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX necessarily_RR so_RR ,_, for_IF the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE procurement_NN1 of_IO the_AT commission_NN1 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 may_VM again_RT expose_VVI him_PPHO1 to_II liability_NN1 as_II a_AT1 joint_JJ tortfeasor_NN1 ,_, and_CC as_II21 to_II22 a_AT1 breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 he_PPHS1 may_VM anyway_RR have_VHI committed_VVN the_AT substantive_JJ tort_NN1 of_IO interference_NN1 with_IW an_AT1 existing_JJ contract_NN1 ._. 
In_II any_DD event_NN1 ,_, the_AT emergence_NN1 of_IO the_AT generic_JJ tort_NN1 of_IO interference_NN1 with_IW trade_NN1 or_CC business_NN1 by_II unlawful_JJ means_NN may_VM have_VHI had_VHN the_AT effect_NN1 that_CST most_DAT cases_NN2 which_DDQ were_VBDR formerly_RR regarded_VVN as_CSA unlawful_JJ means_NN conspiracies_NN2 amount_NN1 to_II torts_NN2 even_RR without_IW the_AT element_NN1 of_IO combination_NN1 ._. 
If_CS there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 lacuna_NN1 in_II the_AT law_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ probably_RR confined_VVN to_II combinations_NN2 to_TO do_VDI acts_NN2 which_DDQ amount_NN1 to_II crimes_NN2 but_CCB to_II no_AT other_JJ wrong_JJ ,_, but_CCB the_AT exclusion_NN1 of_IO such_DA cases_NN2 from_II the_AT tort_NN1 of_IO conspiracy_NN1 may_VM be_VBI a_AT1 necessary_JJ consequence_NN1 of_IO Lonrho_NN1 whatever_DDQV the_AT mental_JJ element_NN1 required_VVN for_IF the_AT tort_NN1 ._. 
Place_NN1 of_IO conspiracy_NN1 in_II the_AT law_NN1 Conspiracy_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN said_VVN ,_, is_VBZ a_AT1 highly_RR anomalous_JJ tort_NN1 ,_, though_CS it_PPH1 has_VHZ attracted_VVN more_DAR controversy_NN1 among_II academic_JJ writers_NN2 than_CSN success_NN1 in_II practical_JJ application_NN1 ._. 
The_AT central_JJ issue_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN why_RRQ the_AT '_GE magic_NN1 of_IO plurality_NN1 '_GE should_VM make_VVI something_PN1 unlawful_JJ if_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX unlawful_JJ when_CS done_VDN by_II one_MC1 person_NN1 alone_RR ._. 
Numbers_NN2 may_VM ,_, of_RR21 course_RR22 ,_, bring_VVI increased_JJ power_NN1 and_CC in_II the_AT Crofter_NP1 case_NN1 Viscount_NNB Maugham_NP1 said_VVD that_CST he_PPHS1 had_VHD never_RR felt_VVN any_DD difficulty_NN1 in_II seeing_NN1 '_GE the_AT great_JJ difference_NN1 between_II the_AT acts_NN2 of_IO one_MC1 person_NN1 and_CC the_AT acts_NN2 in_II combination_NN1 of_IO two_MC or_CC of_IO a_AT1 multitude_NN1 ,_, '_GE but_CCB ,_, as_CSA Viscount_NNB Simon_NP1 L.C._NP1 remarked_VVD in_II the_AT same_DA case_NN1 :_: '_GE The_AT view_NN1 that_CST the_AT explanation_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO be_VBI found_VVN in_II the_AT increasing_JJ power_NN1 of_IO numbers_NN2 to_TO do_VDI damage_NN1 beyond_II what_DDQ one_MC1 individual_NN1 can_VM do_VDI is_VBZ open_JJ to_II the_AT obvious_JJ answer_NN1 that_CST this_DD1 depends_VVZ on_II the_AT personality_NN1 and_CC influence_NN1 of_IO the_AT individual_NN1 ._. 
In_II the_AT play_NN1 ,_, Cyrano_NP1 de_NP1 Bergerac_NP1 's_GE single_JJ voice_NN1 was_VBDZ more_RGR effective_JJ to_TO drive_VVI the_AT bad_JJ actor_NN1 Montfleury_NN1 off_II the_AT stage_NN1 than_CSN the_AT protests_NN2 of_IO all_DB the_AT rest_NN1 of_IO the_AT audience_NN1 to_TO restrain_VVI him_PPHO1 ._. 
The_AT action_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 single_JJ tyrant_NN1 may_VM be_VBI more_RGR potent_JJ to_TO inflict_VVI suffering_VVG on_II the_AT continent_NN1 of_IO Europe_NP1 than_CSN a_AT1 combination_NN1 of_IO less_RGR powerful_JJ persons_NN2 ._. 
'_GE The_AT argument_NN1 from_II numbers_NN2 continues_VVZ to_TO have_VHI some_DD appeal_NN1 in_II the_AT criminal_JJ law_NN1 but_CCB there_EX are_VBR now_RT few_DA2 situations_NN2 in_II which_DDQ there_EX may_VM be_VBI an_AT1 indictment_NN1 for_IF conspiracy_NN1 in_II31 respect_II32 of_II33 acts_NN2 which_DDQ would_VM not_XX be_VBI criminal_JJ if_CS done_VDN by_II one_MC1 person_NN1 ._. 
One_MC1 day_NNT1 the_AT law_NN1 may_VM re-examine_VVI the_AT place_NN1 in_II our_APPGE law_NN1 of_IO combination_NN1 and_CC of_IO the_AT '_GE chasm_NN1 '_GE between_II lawful_JJ and_CC unlawful_JJ acts_NN2 which_DDQ exists_VVZ in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO an_AT1 individual_JJ ,_, but_CCB the_AT latest_JJT judicial_JJ pronouncements_NN2 suggest_VV0 a_AT1 retreat_NN1 from_II liability_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 an_AT1 advance_NN1 towards_II a_AT1 principle_NN1 that_CST the_AT intentional_JJ infliction_NN1 of_IO harm_NN1 without_IW justification_NN1 is_VBZ actionable_JJ ._. 
INTERFERENCE_NN1 WITH_IW TRADE_NN1 BY_II UNLAWFUL_JJ MEANS_NN Given_CS21 that_CS22 the_AT chasm_NN1 referred_VVN to_II in_II the_AT previous_JJ paragraph_NN1 is_VBZ now_RT unbridgeable_JJ is_VBZ there_EX a_AT1 more_RGR modest_JJ general_JJ principle_NN1 that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 tort_NN1 intentionally_RR to_TO inflict_VVI economic_JJ harm_NN1 on_II another_DD1 by_II use_NN1 of_IO '_GE unlawful_JJ means_NN ?_? 
'_" There_EX is_VBZ now_RT authority_NN1 that_CST ,_, at_RR21 least_RR22 where_CS the_AT harm_NN1 is_VBZ interference_NN1 with_IW trade_NN1 or_CC business_NN1 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ such_DA a_AT1 tort_NN1 ._. 
Its_APPGE principal_JJ practical_JJ impact_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO fill_VVI in_II the_AT gaps_NN2 in_II the_AT other_JJ ,_, long-established_JJ torts_NN2 involving_VVG unlawful_JJ means_NN by_II imposing_JJ liability_NN1 where_CS there_EX is_VBZ no_AT combination_NN1 ,_, no_AT threat_NN1 and_CC no_AT interference_NN1 with_IW a_AT1 subsisting_NN1 contract_NN1 ._. 
In_II J._NP1 T._NP1 Stratford_NP1 &amp;_CC Son_NN1 Ltd._JJ v._II Lindley_NP1 ,_, the_AT facts_NN2 of_IO which_DDQ have_VH0 already_RR been_VBN given_VVN ,_, two_MC at_RR21 least_RR22 of_IO their_APPGE Lordships_NN2 considered_VVD that_CST if_CS the_AT defendants_NN2 had_VHD used_VVN unlawful_JJ means_NN i.e._REX had_VHD committed_VVN against_II the_AT barge_NN1 hirers_NN2 the_AT tort_NN1 of_IO procuring_VVG breaches_NN2 of_IO their_APPGE contract_NN1 with_IW their_APPGE men_NN2 the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 would_VM have_VHI had_VHN a_AT1 cause_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 not_XX only_RR in_II respect_NN1 of_IO breaches_NN2 of_IO hiring_VVG contracts_NN2 but_CCB also_RR in_II31 respect_II32 of_II33 new_JJ business_NN1 they_PPHS2 were_VBDR unable_JK to_TO undertake_VVI ._. 
'_GE In_II31 addition_II32 to_II33 interfering_VVG with_IW existing_JJ contracts_NN2 ,_, '_GE said_VVD Lord_NNB Reid_NP1 '_GE the_AT defendant_NN1 's_GE action_NN1 made_VVD it_PPH1 practically_RR impossible_JJ for_IF the_AT appellants_NN2 to_TO do_VDI any_DD new_JJ business_NN1 with_IW the_AT barge_NN1 hirers_NN2 ._. 
It_PPH1 was_VBDZ not_XX disputed_VVN that_CST such_DA interference_NN1 with_IW business_NN1 is_VBZ tortious_JJ if_CS any_DD unlawful_JJ means_NN are_VBR used_VVN ._. 
'_GE Indeed_RR ,_, this_DD1 result_NN1 is_VBZ an_AT1 irresistible_JJ inference_NN1 from_II the_AT acceptance_NN1 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 of_IO intimidation_NN1 :_: if_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ a_AT1 tort_NN1 by_II A_ZZ1 against_II C_NP1 to_TO threaten_VVI a_AT1 wrong_JJ to_II B_ZZ1 if_CS B_ZZ1 continues_VVZ to_TO deal_VVI with_IW C_ZZ1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ hard_JJ to_TO see_VVI why_RRQ it_PPH1 should_VM not_XX be_VBI equally_RR tortious_JJ to_TO inflict_VVI harm_NN1 on_II C_NP1 by_II committing_VVG that_DD1 wrong_JJ rather_II21 than_II22 merely_RR threatening_VVG it_PPH1 ._. 
More_RGR generally_RR ,_, however_RR ,_, this_DD1 tort_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN said_VVN to_TO be_VBI the_AT genus_NN1 of_IO which_DDQ the_AT other_JJ unlawful_JJ means_NN torts_NN2 (_( intimidation_NN1 and_CC interference_NN1 with_IW contract_NN1 and_CC conspiracy_NN1 where_CS unlawful_JJ means_NN are_VBR involved_VVN )_) are_VBR species_NN ._. 
If_CS this_DD1 is_VBZ correct_JJ ,_, it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI asked_VVN why_RRQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ necessary_JJ to_TO deal_VVI with_IW the_AT established_JJ ,_, nominate_JJ torts_NN2 at_RR21 all_RR22 ,_, to_II which_DDQ one_PN1 can_VM only_RR respond_VVI that_CST until_CS the_AT limits_NN2 of_IO the_AT general_JJ tort_NN1 are_VBR clearly_RR established_VVN plaintiffs_NN2 are_VBR likely_JJ to_TO rely_VVI upon_II as_RG many_DA2 causes_NN2 of_IO action_NN1 as_CSA they_PPHS2 can_VM ,_, even_CS21 though_CS22 from_II our_APPGE point_NN1 of_IO view_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ untidy_JJ to_TO have_VHI two_MC or_CC more_DAR torts_NN2 rather_II21 than_II22 one_PN1 ._. 
Mental_JJ element_NN1 Like_II the_AT established_JJ economic_JJ torts_NN2 ,_, this_DD1 is_VBZ a_AT1 tort_NN1 of_IO intention_NN1 and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ thought_VVN that_CST the_AT conduct_NN1 of_IO the_AT defendant_NN1 must_VM have_VHI the_AT plaintiff_NN1 as_CSA its_APPGE target_NN1 though_CS it_PPH1 need_VM not_XX be_VBI the_AT predominant_JJ purpose_NN1 in_II the_AT sense_NN1 that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 needs_VVZ to_TO be_VBI activated_VVN by_II malevolence_NN1 :_: the_AT pursuit_NN1 of_IO self-interest_NN1 by_II unlawful_JJ means_NN is_VBZ actionable_JJ ._. 
Although_CS in_II some_DD branches_NN2 of_IO the_AT law_NN1 a_AT1 defendant_NN1 may_VM be_VBI treated_VVN as_CSA intending_VVG the_AT known_JJ inevitable_JJ or_CC likely_JJ consequences_NN2 of_IO his_APPGE act_NN1 ,_, that_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX so_RR here_RL ,_, for_IF it_PPH1 would_VM stretch_VVI the_AT tort_NN1 too_RG far_JJ to_TO impose_VVI liability_NN1 where_CS '_GE the_AT reasons_NN2 which_DDQ actuate_VV0 the_AT defendant_NN1 to_TO use_VVI unlawful_JJ means_NN are_VBR wholly_RR independent_JJ of_IO a_AT1 wish_NN1 to_TO interfere_VVI with_IW the_AT plaintiff_NN1 's_GE business_NN1 ,_, such_DA interference_NN1 being_VBG no_AT more_DAR than_CSN an_AT1 incidental_JJ consequence_NN1 foreseen_VVN by_II and_CC gratifying_JJ to_II the_AT defendant_NN1 ._. 
'_" It_PPH1 must_VM ,_, however_RR ,_, be_VBI said_VVN that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ by_RR31 no_RR32 means_RR33 crystal_NN1 clear_VV0 that_CST this_DD1 forms_VVZ the_AT mental_JJ element_NN1 of_IO the_AT '_GE species_NN '_GE torts_NN2 of_IO unlawful_JJ interference_NN1 with_IW contract_NN1 and_CC unlawful_JJ means_NN conspiracy_NN1 (_( indeed_RR ,_, in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO the_AT latter_DA it_PPH1 very_RG probably_RR does_VDZ not_XX )_) and_CC it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX easy_JJ to_TO see_VVI how_RRQ the_AT species_NN can_VM differ_VVI in_II this_DD1 respect_NN1 from_II the_AT genus_NN1 ._. 
Trade_NN1 or_CC business_NN1 Beyond_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST most_DAT cases_NN2 are_VBR likely_JJ to_TO arise_VVI in_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO trade_NN1 or_CC business_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX apparent_JJ why_RRQ liability_NN1 should_VM be_VBI confined_VVN to_II cases_NN2 where_RRQ those_DD2 activities_NN2 are_VBR interfered_VVN with_IW ._. 
If_CS it_PPH1 is_VBZ actionable_JJ to_TO use_VVI unlawful_JJ means_NN to_TO drive_VVI away_RL C_ZZ1 's_VBZ prospective_JJ customers_NN2 why_RRQ should_VM it_PPH1 not_XX equally_RR be_VBI actionable_JJ to_TO use_VVI such_DA means_NN against_II a_AT1 person_NN1 who_PNQS proposes_VVZ to_TO buy_VVI his_APPGE house_NN1 but_CCB has_VHZ not_XX yet_RR signed_VVN a_AT1 contract_NN1 to_TO do_VDI so_RR ?_? 
If_CS '_GE trade_NN1 or_CC business_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ to_TO be_VBI regarded_VVN as_II a_AT1 requirement_NN1 of_IO the_AT tort_NN1 there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 danger_NN1 that_CST the_AT genus_NN1 may_VM be_VBI narrower_JJR than_CSN the_AT species_NN ._. 
However_RR ,_, it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN suggested_VVN that_CST the_AT tort_NN1 protects_VVZ only_RR some_DD identifiable_JJ legal_JJ right_NN1 ._. 
In_II Lonrho_NP1 plc_NN1 v._II Fayed_JJ the_AT facts_NN2 which_DDQ the_AT court_NN1 was_VBDZ required_VVN to_TO assume_VVI to_TO be_VBI true_JJ were_VBDR that_CST the_AT defendants_NN2 had_VHD made_VVN fraudulent_JJ misrepresentations_NN2 about_II themselves_PPX2 to_II the_AT Secretary_NN1 of_IO State_NN1 in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO influence_VVI him_PPHO1 not_XX to_TO refer_VVI their_APPGE bid_NN1 for_IF H.F._NP1 Co._NP1 to_II the_AT Monopolies_NN2 and_CC Mergers_NN2 Commission_NN1 ._. 
The_AT plaintiffs_NN2 contended_VVD that_CST they_PPHS2 had_VHD thereby_RR been_VBN deprived_VVN of_IO the_AT opportunity_NN1 to_TO bid_VVI for_IF H.F._NP1 Co._NP1 but_CCB pill_NN1 J._NP1 rejected_VVD their_APPGE claim_NN1 because_CS while_CS the_AT law_NN1 certainly_RR allowed_VVN a_AT1 freedom_NN1 to_TO bid_VVI for_IF property_NN1 that_CST was_VBDZ neither_RR a_AT1 '_GE business_NN1 asset_NN1 '_GE of_IO the_AT plaintiffs_NN2 '_GE nor_CC a_AT1 legal_JJ right_NN1 which_DDQ the_AT law_NN1 would_VM protect_VVI ._. 
The_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, declined_VVD to_TO deal_VVI with_IW this_DD1 and_CC other_JJ points_NN2 on_II a_AT1 striking-out_NN1 application_NN1 ._. 
Two-party_NN1 or_CC three-party_NN1 ?_? 
As_CSA we_PPIS2 have_VH0 seen_VVN ,_, at_RR21 least_RR22 one_MC1 form_NN1 of_IO the_AT established_JJ economic_JJ torts_NN2 (_( intimidation_NN1 )_) may_VM exist_VVI even_CS21 though_CS22 the_AT defendant_NN1 uses_VVZ unlawful_JJ means_NN directly_RR against_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 rather_II21 than_II22 against_II a_AT1 third_MD party_NN1 ._. 
Is_VBZ it_PPH1 ,_, therefore_RR ,_, the_AT law_NN1 that_CST if_CS A_ZZ1 steals_VVZ the_AT tools_NN2 of_IO a_AT1 carpenter_NN1 ,_, B_ZZ1 ,_, and_CC locks_VVZ him_PPHO1 up_RP ,_, B_ZZ1 may_VM sue_VVI for_IF unlawful_JJ interference_NN1 with_IW trade_NN1 as_II31 well_II32 as_II33 conversion_NN1 and_CC false_JJ imprisonment_NN1 ?_? 
Or_CC (_( assuming_VVG breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 to_TO be_VBI unlawful_JJ means_NN )_) that_CST A_ZZ1 is_VBZ liable_JJ in_II tort_NN1 if_CS ,_, in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO bring_VVI down_RP B_ZZ1 ,_, he_PPHS1 breaches_VVZ his_APPGE contract_NN1 with_IW him_PPHO1 ?_? 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ thought_VVN that_CST the_AT answer_NN1 in_II each_DD1 case_NN1 should_VM be_VBI '_GE no_NN1 '_GE because_CS ,_, quite_RR apart_II21 from_II22 the_AT practical_JJ consequences_NN2 of_IO thus_RR multiplying_VVG liability_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 would_VM be_VBI a_AT1 travesty_NN1 of_IO history_NN1 to_TO unify_VVI these_DD2 disparate_JJ wrongs_NN2 under_RG one_MC1 heading_NN1 of_IO tort_NN1 ._. 
Unlawful_JJ means_NN If_CS the_AT law_NN1 of_IO economic_JJ torts_NN2 is_VBZ in_II a_AT1 mess_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ largely_RR because_II21 of_II22 uncertainty_NN1 over_II what_DDQ constitutes_VVZ unlawful_JJ means_NN ._. 
This_DD1 concept_NN1 has_VHZ played_VVN the_AT leading_JJ role_NN1 in_II the_AT development_NN1 of_IO the_AT modern_JJ law_NN1 but_CCB the_AT question_NN1 of_IO definition_NN1 has_VHZ tended_VVN to_TO be_VBI passed_VVN over_RP in_II the_AT cases_NN2 with_IW little_DA1 analysis_NN1 ._. 
Since_CS the_AT broad_JJ ,_, '_GE genus_NN1 '_GE tort_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 comparatively_RR recent_JJ growth_NN1 ,_, most_DAT of_IO the_AT authorities_NN2 on_II unlawful_JJ means_NN concern_VV0 the_AT older_JJR ,_, nominate_JJ wrongs_NN2 so_CS21 that_CS22 the_AT elements_NN2 of_IO the_AT former_DA are_VBR to_II some_DD extend_VV0 rationalisations_NN2 from_II the_AT latter_DA and_CC ,_, as_CSA we_PPIS2 have_VH0 seen_VVN ,_, there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 regrettable_JJ element_NN1 of_IO doubt_NN1 as_II21 to_II22 whether_CSW '_GE unlawful_JJ means_NN '_GE bears_NN2 the_AT same_DA meaning_NN1 wherever_RRQV it_PPH1 occurs_VVZ ._. 
Bearing_VVG that_CST in_II mind_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ tolerably_RR clear_VV0 that_CST conduct_VV0 which_DDQ is_VBZ itself_PPX1 tortious_JJ is_VBZ always_RR unlawful_JJ means_NN ._. 
The_AT same_DA is_VBZ probably_RR true_JJ of_IO breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 but_CCB once_RR we_PPIS2 move_VV0 outside_II the_AT area_NN1 of_IO wrongs_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR civilly_RR actionable_JJ in_II damages_NN2 the_AT law_NN1 becomes_VVZ more_RGR uncertain_JJ ._. 
For_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN held_VVN that_CST an_AT1 arrangement_NN1 void_NN1 for_IF contravention_NN1 of_IO the_AT Restrictive_JJ Trade_NN1 Practices_NN2 Act_VV0 1956_MC constitutes_VVZ unlawful_JJ means_NN but_CCB this_DD1 is_VBZ hard_JJ to_TO reconcile_VVI with_IW the_AT clear_JJ decision_NN1 in_II the_AT Mogul_NN1 case_NN1 that_CST an_AT1 agreement_NN1 in_II restraint_NN1 of_IO trade_NN1 at_II common_JJ law_NN1 did_VDD not_XX ._. 
Breach_NN1 of_IO confidence_NN1 might_VM qualify_VVI as_RG unlawful_JJ means_NN (_( assuming_VVG it_PPH1 not_XX to_TO be_VBI a_AT1 tort_NN1 in_II itself_PPX1 )_) but_CCB there_EX has_VHZ been_VBN no_AT subsequent_JJ support_NN1 for_IF Lord_NNB Denning_NP1 M.R._NNB 's_GE suggestion_NN1 that_CST the_AT concept_NN1 might_VM extend_VVI to_TO '_GE interference_NN1 with_IW the_AT press_NN1 ._. 
'_GE On_II the_AT other_JJ hand_NN1 ,_, a_AT1 fraudulent_JJ statement_NN1 to_II a_AT1 third_MD party_NN1 is_VBZ unlawful_JJ means_NN even_CS21 though_CS22 the_AT third_MD party_NN1 could_VM not_XX sue_VVI for_IF tort_NN1 because_CS he_PPHS1 suffers_VVZ no_AT damage_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 might_VM seem_VVI self-evident_JJ that_CST the_AT commission_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 crime_NN1 amounts_VVZ to_II unlawful_JJ means_NN ,_, but_CCB this_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX so_RR ,_, at_RR21 least_RR22 where_CS the_AT crime_NN1 is_VBZ created_VVN by_II statute_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 was_VBDZ the_AT first_MD point_NN1 dealt_VVN with_IW by_II the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP in_II Lonrho_NP1 Ltd._JJ v._II Shell_NN1 Petroleum_NN1 Co_NN1 ._. 
Ltd_JJ ._. 
(_( No._NN1 2_MC )_) ,_, the_AT facts_NN2 of_IO which_DDQ have_VH0 already_RR been_VBN summarised_VVN ,_, and_CC in_II which_DDQ it_PPH1 was_VBDZ held_VVN that_CST the_AT restrictions_NN2 imposed_VVN on_II the_AT bringing_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 direct_JJ civil_JJ action_NN1 for_IF breach_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 statute_NN1 could_VM not_XX be_VBI outflanked_VVN by_II framing_VVG the_AT claim_NN1 as_CSA one_PN1 for_IF the_AT tort_NN1 of_IO unlawful_JJ interference_NN1 with_IW trade_NN1 ._. 
As_II a_AT1 matter_NN1 of_IO strict_JJ precedent_NN1 ,_, however_RR ,_, this_DD1 aspect_NN1 of_IO the_AT Lonrho_NN1 case_NN1 must_VM have_VHI been_VBN decided_VVN on_II the_AT same_DA factual_JJ assumption_NN1 as_CSA that_DD1 which_DDQ governed_VVD the_AT conspiracy_NN1 claim_NN1 ,_, viz._REX that_CST while_CS injury_NN1 to_II Lonrho_NP1 's_GE business_NN1 was_VBDZ foreseeable_JJ it_PPH1 was_VBDZ not_XX the_AT defendants_NN2 '_GE purpose_NN1 to_TO bring_VVI it_PPH1 about_RP ._. 
It_PPH1 might_VM ,_, therefore_RR ,_, be_VBI open_JJ to_II a_AT1 court_NN1 to_TO find_VVI liability_NN1 where_CS a_AT1 defendant_NN1 committed_VVN a_AT1 statutory_JJ offence_NN1 as_II the_AT vehicle_NN1 for_IF the_AT deliberate_JJ infliction_NN1 of_IO harm_NN1 upon_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ._. 
In_II31 view_II32 of_II33 the_AT Lonrho_NN1 decision_NN1 a_AT1 similar_JJ question_NN1 might_VM arise_VVI with_II31 regard_II32 to_II33 common_JJ law_NN1 crimes_NN2 which_DDQ are_VBR not_XX also_RR torts_VVZ in_II their_APPGE own_DA right_NN1 ._. 
The_AT closest_JJT case_NN1 on_II this_DD1 point_NN1 is_VBZ probably_RR Chapman_NP1 v._II Honig_NP1 where_RRQ a_AT1 landlord_NN1 gave_VVD notice_NN1 to_TO quit_VVI to_II his_APPGE tenant_NN1 ,_, the_AT notice_NN1 being_VBG in_II31 accordance_II32 with_II33 the_AT terms_NN2 of_IO the_AT lease_NN1 ._. 
H_ZZ221 's_ZZ222 purpose_VV0 ,_, however_RR ,_, was_VBDZ to_TO punish_VVI the_AT tenant_NN1 for_IF having_VHG given_VVN evidence_NN1 (_( under_II subpoena_NN1 )_) in_II an_AT1 action_NN1 brought_VVN against_II him_PPHO1 by_II another_DD1 of_IO his_APPGE tenants_NN2 and_CC it_PPH1 followed_VVD that_CST the_AT landlord_NN1 was_VBDZ guilty_JJ of_IO a_AT1 criminal_JJ contempt_NN1 of_IO court_NN1 ._. 
Nevertheless_RR ,_, the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 held_VVD ,_, by_II a_AT1 majority_NN1 ,_, that_CST the_AT tenant_NN1 had_VHD no_AT cause_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 against_II the_AT landlord_NN1 ._. 
In_II coming_VVG to_II this_DD1 conclusion_NN1 Pearson_NP1 L.J._NP1 foreshadowed_VVD the_AT '_GE construction_NN1 '_GE approach_NN1 in_II Lonrho_NP1 by_II treating_VVG the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 criminal_NN1 contempt_NN1 as_CS21 if_CS22 it_PPH1 were_VBDR created_VVN by_II a_AT1 hypothetical_JJ enactment_NN1 and_CC asking_VVG what_DDQ intention_NN1 was_VBDZ to_TO be_VBI inferred_VVN ,_, with_II31 regard_II32 to_II33 civil_JJ liability_NN1 ,_, from_II the_AT exercise_NN1 of_IO the_AT contempt_NN1 jurisdiction_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX easy_JJ to_TO reconcile_VVI Chapman_NP1 v._II Honig_NN1 with_IW Acrow_NP1 (_( Automation_NN1 )_) Ltd._JJ v._II Rex_NP1 Chainbelt_NP1 Inc._JJ (_( where_CS Chapman_NP1 v._II Honig_NP1 was_VBDZ not_XX cited_VVN )_) ._. 
Acrow_VV0 Ltd._JJ obtained_VVD an_AT1 injunction_NN1 to_TO restrain_VVI an_AT1 American_JJ company_NN1 ,_, S.I._NP1 ,_, from_II acting_VVG in_II breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 so_BCL21 as_BCL22 to_TO impede_VVI Acrow_NP1 's_GE manufacture_NN1 of_IO machinery_NN1 under_II licence_NN1 from_II S.I.S.I._NP1 purported_VVD to_TO ignore_VVI the_AT injunction_NN1 and_CC instructed_VVD Rex_NP1 Chainbelt_NP1 ,_, suppliers_NN2 of_IO components_NN2 for_IF Acrow_NP1 's_GE process_NN1 ,_, to_TO cease_VVI supply_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 did_VDD not_XX involve_VVI the_AT breach_NN1 of_IO any_DD subsisting_VVG contract_NN1 between_II Acrow_NP1 and_CC Rex_NP1 Chainbelt_NP1 ._. 
The_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 granted_VVD an_AT1 injunction_NN1 to_TO restrain_VVI Rex_NP1 Chainbelt_NP1 from_II obeying_VVG S.I._NP1 's_GE instructions_NN2 :_: Rex_NP1 Chainbelt_NP1 's_GE conduct_NN1 was_VBDZ interference_NN1 by_II unlawful_JJ means_NN because_CS it_PPH1 was_VBDZ done_VDN in_II obedience_NN1 to_II the_AT orders_NN2 of_IO S.1._FO which_DDQ were_VBDR in_II contempt_NN1 of_IO court_NN1 ._. 
The_AT case_NN1 may_VM be_VBI different_JJ from_II Chapman_NP1 v._II Honig_NP1 in_CS21 that_CS22 the_AT contempt_NN1 involved_VVD was_VBDZ civil_JJ not_XX criminal_JJ but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX easy_JJ to_TO see_VVI why_RRQ this_DD1 should_VM point_VVI towards_II tortious_JJ liability_NN1 ._. 
Nor_CC can_VM any_DD distinction_NN1 be_VBI drawn_VVN on_II the_AT basis_NN1 that_CST there_EX were_VBDR three_MC persons_NN2 involved_VVN whereas_CS Chapman_NP1 v._II Honig_NP1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 '_GE two-party_NN1 '_GE case_NN1 ,_, for_IF a_AT1 true_JJ '_GE three-party_NN1 '_GE case_NN1 only_RR arises_VVZ where_RRQ A_ZZ1 acts_VVZ in_II a_AT1 manner_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ primarily_RR unlawful_JJ in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 B_ZZ1 with_IW the_AT purpose_NN1 of_IO injuring_VVG C._NP1 In_II Acrow_NP1 there_EX was_VBDZ no_AT B._NP1 TRADE_NN1 DISPUTES_NN2 A_ZZ1 general_JJ textbook_NN1 on_II the_AT law_NN1 of_IO tort_NN1 is_VBZ no_AT place_NN1 for_IF an_AT1 extended_JJ discussion_NN1 of_IO the_AT specialised_JJ law_NN1 relating_VVG to_TO trade_VVI disputes_NN2 but_CCB those_DD2 disputes_NN2 have_VH0 provided_VVN most_DAT of_IO the_AT '_GE raw_JJ material_NN1 '_GE for_IF the_AT development_NN1 of_IO the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 and_CC their_APPGE legal_JJ regulation_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN so_RG substantially_RR modified_VVN by_II statute_NN1 since_II 1906_MC that_CST some_DD account_NN1 of_IO the_AT legislative_JJ intervention_NN1 is_VBZ necessary_JJ ._. 
Trade_NN1 Disputes_NN2 Acts_NN2 1906_MC and_CC 1965_MC The_AT Trade_NN1 Disputes_NN2 Act_VV0 1906_MC was_VBDZ of_IO enormous_JJ importance_NN1 but_CCB only_RR the_AT briefest_JJT summary_NN1 of_IO its_APPGE provisions_NN2 can_VM be_VBI attempted_VVN here_RL ._. 
The_AT Act_NN1 :_: (_( i_ZZ1 )_) made_VVD trade_NN1 unions_NN2 completely_RR immune_JJ from_II actions_NN2 in_II tort_NN1 ,_, though_CS it_PPH1 did_VDD not_XX affect_VVI liability_NN1 of_IO individuals_NN2 ;_; (_( ii_MC )_) rendered_VVN '_GE conspiracy_NN1 to_TO injure_VVI '_GE (_( i.e._REX without_IW unlawful_JJ means_NN )_) not_XX actionable_JJ in_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO trade_NN1 disputes_NN2 ;_; (_( iii_MC )_) rendered_VVN inducement_NN1 of_IO breaches_NN2 of_IO contracts_NN2 of_IO employment_NN1 not_XX actionable_JJ in_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO trade_NN1 disputes_NN2 ._. 
The_AT Trade_NN1 Disputes_NN2 Act_VV0 1965_MC reversed_JJ Rookes_NP2 v._II Barnard_NP1 in_II trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 cases_NN2 by_II rendering_VVG not_XX actionable_JJ a_AT1 threat_NN1 to_TO break_VVI or_CC induce_VVI the_AT breach_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 contract_NN1 of_IO employment_NN1 ._. 
Industrial_JJ Relations_NN2 Act_VV0 1971_MC This_DD1 Act_NN1 set_VVD out_RP to_TO enlarge_VVI the_AT range_NN1 of_IO civil_JJ remedies_NN2 for_IF wrongful_JJ acts_NN2 done_VDN in_II contemplation_NN1 or_CC furtherance_NN1 of_IO '_GE industrial_JJ disputes_NN2 ,_, '_GE but_CCB through_II the_AT new_JJ statutory_JJ concept_NN1 of_IO unfair_JJ industrial_JJ practices_NN2 ,_, not_XX through_II the_AT law_NN1 of_IO tort_NN1 ._. 
Some_DD of_IO these_DD2 unfair_JJ industrial_JJ practices_NN2 were_VBDR similar_JJ to_II certain_JJ varieties_NN2 of_IO torts_NN2 and_CC the_AT common_JJ law_NN1 was_VBDZ not_XX wholly_RR abolished_VVN ._. 
However_RR ,_, the_AT Act_NN1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 disastrous_JJ failure_NN1 for_IF political_JJ reasons_NN2 and_CC was_VBDZ repealed_VVN by_II the_AT Trade_NN1 Union_NN1 and_CC Labour_JJ Relations_NN2 Act_VV0 1974_MC ._. 
Trade_NN1 Union_NN1 and_CC Labour_JJ Relations_NN2 Act_VV0 1974_MC This_DD1 Act_NN1 still_RR forms_VVZ the_AT basis_NN1 of_IO legal_JJ immunities_NN2 in_II trade_NN1 disputes_NN2 ,_, though_CS most_DAT of_IO the_AT relevant_JJ provisions_NN2 have_VH0 in_II fact_NN1 been_VBN inserted_VVN by_II textual_JJ amendment_NN1 by_II later_JJR legislation_NN1 ._. 
Protection_NN1 is_VBZ granted_VVN ,_, in_II the_AT context_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 ,_, to_II interference_NN1 with_IW contract_NN1 (_( and_CC not_XX merely_RR a_AT1 contract_NN1 of_IO employment_NN1 )_) ,_, to_II intimidation_NN1 or_CC conspiracy_NN1 to_TO injure_VVI and_CC to_II interference_NN1 with_IW trade_NN1 by_II unlawful_JJ means_NN but_CCB by_II the_AT Employment_NN1 Act_NN1 1980_MC this_DD1 protection_NN1 was_VBDZ to_II a_AT1 large_JJ extent_NN1 withdrawn_VVN in_II31 case_II32 of_II33 '_GE secondary_JJ action_NN1 ._. 
'_GE Present_JJ law_NN1 (_( 1_MC1 )_) Trade_NN1 unions_NN2 It_PPH1 will_VM have_VHI been_VBN observed_VVN that_CST nearly_RR all_DB the_AT cases_NN2 in_II this_DD1 chapter_NN1 arising_VVG from_II industrial_JJ disputes_NN2 have_VH0 taken_VVN the_AT form_NN1 of_IO actions_NN2 against_II individual_JJ workers_NN2 or_CC trade_NN1 union_NN1 officials_NN2 ._. 
This_DD1 is_VBZ because_CS for_IF many_DA2 years_NNT2 trade_NN1 unions_NN2 themselves_PPX2 were_VBDR immune_JJ from_II actions_NN2 in_II tort_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 was_VBDZ not_XX based_VVN on_II the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST a_AT1 trade_NN1 union_NN1 was_VBDZ an_AT1 unincorporated_JJ body_NN1 ,_, for_IF in_II Taff_NP1 Vale_NN1 Railway_NN1 Co._NN1 v._II Amalgamated_JJ Society_NN1 of_IO Railway_NN1 Servants_NN2 the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP held_JJ that_CST a_AT1 union_NN1 registered_VVN under_II the_AT Trade_NN1 Union_NN1 Act_NN1 1871_MC was_VBDZ enough_DD of_IO a_AT1 legal_JJ entity_NN1 to_TO be_VBI sued_VVN in_II tort_NN1 ._. 
The_AT Taff_NP1 Vale_NN1 case_NN1 was_VBDZ reversed_VVN by_II section_NN1 4_MC of_IO the_AT Trade_NN1 Disputes_NN2 Act_VV0 1906_MC ._. 
After_CS a_AT1 brief_JJ period_NN1 during_II which_DDQ a_AT1 registered_JJ trade_NN1 union_NN1 was_VBDZ a_AT1 corporate_JJ body_NN1 under_II the_AT Act_NN1 of_IO 1971_MC ,_, the_AT Trade_NN1 Union_NN1 and_CC Labour_JJ Relations_NN2 Act_VV0 1974_MC restored_VVD the_AT immunity_NN1 ,_, though_CS liability_NN1 was_VBDZ imposed_VVN (_( where_CS there_EX was_VBDZ no_AT trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 )_) for_IF certain_JJ torts_NN2 causing_VVG personal_JJ injury_NN1 or_CC breaches_NN2 of_IO duty_NN1 connected_VVN with_IW the_AT union_NN1 's_GE property_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 remains_VVZ the_AT law_NN1 that_CST a_AT1 trade_NN1 union_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX ,_, and_CC is_VBZ not_XX to_TO be_VBI treated_VVN as_CS21 if_CS22 it_PPH1 were_VBDR ,_, a_AT1 body_NN1 corporate_JJ ,_, but_CCB a_AT1 much_RR wider_JJR measure_NN1 of_IO tort_NN1 liability_NN1 is_VBZ now_RT imposed_VVN by_II the_AT Employment_NN1 Act_NN1 1982_MC ._. 
The_AT central_JJ difficulty_NN1 is_VBZ that_DD1 of_IO attributing_VVG responsibility_NN1 to_II the_AT '_GE centre_NN1 '_GE in_II such_DA a_AT1 '_GE devolved_JJ '_GE organisation_NN1 as_CSA the_AT typical_JJ trade_NN1 union_NN1 ,_, bearing_VVG in_II mind_NN1 the_AT likelihood_NN1 that_DD1 '_VBZ unofficial_JJ action_NN1 '_GE will_NN1 be_VBI taken_VVN at_II individual_JJ plant_NN1 level_NN1 without_IW prior_JJ consultation_NN1 with_IW the_AT union_NN1 's_GE central_JJ organs_NN2 ._. 
The_AT fundamental_JJ proposition_NN1 of_IO the_AT 1982_MC Act_NN1 is_VBZ that_CST the_AT immunity_NN1 of_IO trade_NN1 unions_NN2 in_II tort_NN1 is_VBZ totally_RR abolished_VVN ,_, though_CS the_AT union_NN1 enjoys_VVZ the_AT same_DA defences_NN2 as_CSA an_AT1 individual_JJ where_CS action_NN1 is_VBZ taken_VVN in_II contemplation_NN1 or_CC furtherance_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, the_AT range_NN1 of_IO the_AT union_NN1 's_GE responsibility_NN1 for_IF the_AT acts_NN2 of_IO its_APPGE officers_NN2 and_CC members_NN2 differs_VVZ according_II21 to_II22 the_AT nature_NN1 of_IO the_AT claim_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ brought_VVN against_II it_PPH1 ._. 
According_II21 to_II22 section_NN1 15_MC of_IO the_AT 1982_MC Act_NN1 ,_, if_CS the_AT union_NN1 is_VBZ sued_VVN for_IF inducing_VVG breach_NN1 of_IO or_CC interfering_VVG with_IW contract_NN1 ,_, or_CC for_IF intimidation_NN1 by_II threats_NN2 to_TO interfere_VVI with_IW contract_NN1 ,_, or_CC for_IF conspiracy_NN1 to_TO commit_VVI these_DD2 torts_NN2 ,_, then_RT the_AT act_NN1 in_II question_NN1 shall_VM be_VBI taken_VVN to_TO have_VHI been_VBN done_VDN by_II the_AT union_NN1 only_RR if_CS it_PPH1 was_VBDZ authorised_VVN or_CC endorsed_VVN by_II a_AT1 '_GE responsible_JJ person_NN1 ,_, '_" which_DDQ means_VVZ the_AT principal_JJ executive_NN1 committee_NN1 ,_, any_DD person_NN1 authorised_VVN by_II the_AT rules_NN2 to_TO endorse_VVI acts_NN2 of_IO the_AT kind_NN1 in_II question_NN1 ,_, the_AT president_NN1 or_CC general_JJ secretary_NN1 ,_, any_DD other_JJ employed_JJ official_NN1 ,_, or_CC any_DD committee_NN1 to_II which_DDQ an_AT1 employed_JJ official_JJ reports_NN2 ,_, but_CCB an_AT1 act_NN1 by_II an_AT1 official_JJ or_CC a_AT1 committee_NN1 to_II which_DDQ he_PPHS1 reports_VVZ shall_VM not_XX be_VBI taken_VVN as_CSA authorised_VVN or_CC endorsed_VVN if_CS the_AT official_NN1 or_CC committee_NN1 was_VBDZ prevented_VVN from_II authorising_VVG or_CC endorsing_VVG the_AT act_NN1 by_II union_NN1 rules_NN2 or_CC if_CS the_AT act_NN1 has_VHZ been_VBN repudiated_VVN by_II the_AT president_NN1 or_CC general_JJ secretary_NN1 ._. 
In_II all_DB other_JJ cases_NN2 it_PPH1 would_VM seem_VVI that_CST the_AT union_NN1 's_GE responsibility_NN1 for_IF the_AT acts_NN2 of_IO an_AT1 individual_NN1 are_VBR to_TO be_VBI determined_VVN by_II the_AT general_JJ law_NN1 of_IO master_NN1 and_CC servant_NN1 or_CC agency_NN1 ._. 
Where_CS the_AT union_NN1 's_GE liability_NN1 arises_VVZ in_II31 respect_II32 of_II33 personal_JJ injury_NN1 caused_VVN by_II negligence_NN1 ,_, nuisance_NN1 or_CC breach_NN1 of_IO duty_NN1 ,_, or_CC in_II31 respect_II32 of_II33 ownership_NN1 or_CC possession_NN1 of_IO property_NN1 ,_, there_EX is_VBZ no_AT limit_NN1 on_II its_APPGE amount_NN1 ,_, but_CCB in_II other_JJ cases_NN2 there_EX are_VBR financial_JJ limits_NN2 according_II21 to_II22 the_AT size_NN1 of_IO the_AT union_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, damages_NN2 are_VBR not_XX recoverable_JJ by_II enforcement_NN1 against_II '_GE protected_JJ property_NN1 '_GE (_( which_DDQ includes_VVZ a_AT1 political_JJ fund_NN1 which_DDQ is_VBZ not_XX available_JJ for_IF financing_VVG strikes_NN2 and_CC provident_JJ benefits_NN2 fund_NN1 )_) ._. 
Actions_NN2 for_IF damages_NN2 (_( as_II31 opposed_II32 to_II33 injunctions_NN2 )_) have_VH0 not_XX so_RG far_RR figured_VVN largely_RR in_II litigation_NN1 against_II individuals_NN2 caused_VVN by_II industrial_JJ action_NN1 ;_; the_AT limits_NN2 to_II union_NN1 liability_NN1 set_VVN by_II the_AT 1982_MC Act_NN1 are_VBR low_JJ in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 the_AT loss_NN1 that_CST may_VM be_VBI suffered_VVN and_CC the_AT very_RG large_JJ fines_NN2 imposed_VVN for_IF contempt_NN1 by_II disobedience_NN1 to_II injunctions_NN2 have_VH0 probably_RR been_VBN a_AT1 more_RGR powerful_JJ sanction._NNU (_( 2_MC )_) Liability_NN1 of_IO individuals_NN2 An_AT1 individual_NN1 (_( e.g._REX a_AT1 shop_NN1 steward_NN1 )_) is_VBZ liable_JJ for_IF unprivileged_JJ acts_NN2 in_II the_AT course_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 ,_, whether_CSW31 or_CSW32 not_CSW33 a_AT1 trade_NN1 union_NN1 is_VBZ liable_JJ ._. 
The_AT extent_NN1 of_IO individual_JJ immunity_NN1 in_II this_DD1 context_NN1 is_VBZ found_VVN in_II section_NN1 13_MC of_IO the_AT Trade_NN1 Union_NN1 and_CC Labour_JJ Relations_NN2 Act_VV0 1974_MC ,_, as_CSA limited_VVN ,_, in_II the_AT case_NN1 of_IO '_GE secondary_JJ action_NN1 '_GE by_II the_AT Employment_NN1 Act_NN1 1980_MC ._. 
Section_NN1 13_MC in_II its_APPGE present_JJ form_NN1 reads_VVZ as_CSA follows_VVZ :_: '_GE (_( 1_MC1 )_) An_AT1 act_NN1 done_VDN by_II a_AT1 person_NN1 in_II contemplation_NN1 or_CC furtherance_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 shall_VM not_XX be_VBI actionable_JJ in_II tort_NN1 on_II the_AT ground_NN1 only_RR (_( a_ZZ1 )_) that_CST it_PPH1 induces_VVZ another_DD1 person_NN1 to_TO break_VVI a_AT1 contract_NN1 or_CC interferes_VVZ or_CC induces_VVZ any_DD other_JJ person_NN1 to_TO interfere_VVI with_IW its_APPGE performance_NN1 ;_; or_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) that_CST it_PPH1 consists_VVZ in_II his_APPGE threatening_VVG that_CST a_AT1 contract_NN1 (_( whether_CSW one_PN1 to_II which_DDQ he_PPHS1 is_VBZ a_AT1 party_NN1 or_CC not_XX )_) will_VM be_VBI broken_VVN or_CC its_APPGE performance_NN1 interfered_VVN with_IW ,_, or_CC that_CST he_PPHS1 will_VM induce_VVI another_DD1 person_NN1 to_TO break_VVI a_AT1 contract_NN1 or_CC to_TO interfere_VVI with_IW its_APPGE performance._NNU (_( 4_MC )_) An_AT1 agreement_NN1 or_CC combination_NN1 by_II two_MC or_CC more_DAR persons_NN2 to_TO do_VDI or_CC procure_VVI the_AT doing_VDG of_IO any_DD act_NN1 in_II contemplation_NN1 or_CC furtherance_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 shall_VM not_XX be_VBI actionable_JJ in_II tort_NN1 if_CS the_AT act_NN1 is_VBZ one_PN1 which_DDQ ,_, if_CS done_VDN without_IW any_DD such_DA agreement_NN1 or_CC combination_NN1 ,_, would_VM not_XX be_VBI actionable_JJ in_II tort._NNU '_GE (_( a_ZZ1 )_) Trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 ._. 
In_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO gain_VVI the_AT protection_NN1 of_IO section_NN1 13_MC ,_, the_AT act_NN1 done_VDN by_II the_AT defendant_NN1 must_VM be_VBI '_GE in_II contemplation_NN1 or_CC furtherance_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 ._. 
'_" This_DD1 concept_NN1 ,_, the_AT so-called_JJ '_GE golden_JJ formula_NN1 ,_, '_GE is_VBZ defined_VVN in_II section_NN1 29_MC of_IO the_AT Trade_NN1 Union_NN1 and_CC Labour_JJ Relations_NN2 Act_VV0 1974_MC ,_, as_CSA amended_VVN by_II the_AT Employment_NN1 Act_NN1 1982_MC ._. 
It_PPH1 means_VVZ a_AT1 dispute_NN1 between_II workers_NN2 and_CC their_APPGE employer_NN1 which_DDQ relates_VVZ wholly_RR or_CC mainly_RR to_II one_MC1 or_CC more_DAR of_IO the_AT following_JJ :_: terms_NN2 and_CC conditions_NN2 (_( including_II physical_JJ conditions_NN2 )_) of_IO employment_NN1 :_: engagement_NN1 ,_, non-engagement_NN1 ,_, termination_NN1 or_CC suspension_NN1 of_IO employment_NN1 or_CC of_IO duties_NN2 of_IO employment_NN1 ;_; matters_NN2 of_IO discipline_NN1 ;_; membership_NN1 or_CC non-membership_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 trade_NN1 union_NN1 ;_; facilities_NN2 for_IF union_NN1 officials_NN2 ;_; machinery_NN1 for_IF negotiation_NN1 or_CC consultation_NN1 and_CC other_JJ procedures_NN2 ,_, including_II recognition_NN1 of_IO unions_NN2 ._. 
However_RR ,_, by_II section_NN1 10_MC of_IO the_AT Employment_NN1 Act_NN1 1988_MC the_AT immunity_NN1 is_VBZ withdrawn_VVN where_CS the_AT reason_NN1 or_CC one_MC1 of_IO the_AT reasons_NN2 for_IF which_DDQ the_AT act_NN1 is_VBZ done_VDN is_VBZ the_AT fact_NN1 or_CC belief_NN1 that_CST the_AT employer_NN1 is_VBZ employing_VVG non-union_JJ labour_NN1 ._. 
Action_NN1 in_II31 support_II32 of_II33 the_AT '_GE closed_JJ shop_NN1 ,_, '_GE the_AT source_NN1 of_IO many_DA2 trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 cases_NN2 ,_, is_VBZ no_RR21 longer_RR22 lawful_JJ ._. 
A_AT1 crucial_JJ amendment_NN1 by_II the_AT 1982_MC Act_NN1 was_VBDZ the_AT removal_NN1 of_IO section_NN1 29(4)_FO ,_, which_DDQ provided_CS21 that_CS22 a_AT1 dispute_NN1 to_II which_DDQ a_AT1 trade_NN1 union_NN1 was_VBDZ party_NN1 should_VM be_VBI treated_VVN as_II a_AT1 dispute_NN1 to_II which_DDQ workers_NN2 were_VBDR parties_NN2 ._. 
For_IF this_DD1 reason_NN1 ,_, union_NN1 officials_NN2 can_VM not_XX claim_VVI the_AT protection_NN1 of_IO section_NN1 13_MC ,_, if_CS ,_, as_II part_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 wider_JJR dispute_NN1 ,_, they_PPHS2 initiate_VV0 industrial_JJ action_NN1 against_II an_AT1 employer_NN1 who_PNQS is_VBZ in_II harmony_NN1 with_IW his_APPGE workers_NN2 ._. 
If_CS ,_, however_RR ,_, some_DD support_NN1 for_IF the_AT union_NN1 's_GE policy_NN1 can_VM be_VBI mustered_VVN among_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 employer_NN1 's_GE workers_NN2 the_AT range_NN1 of_IO matters_NN2 covered_VVN by_II section_NN1 29_MC is_VBZ very_RG wide_JJ ._. 
In_II B.B._NP1 C._NP1 v._II Hearn_NP1 the_AT defendants_NN2 ,_, in_BCL21 order_BCL22 to_TO protest_VVI against_II apartheid_NN1 ,_, threatened_VVD to_TO instruct_VVI the_AT members_NN2 of_IO their_APPGE union_NN1 to_TO commit_VVI breaches_NN2 of_IO contract_NN1 in_II31 relation_II32 to_II33 broadcast_NN1 by_II satellite_NN1 to_II South_NP1 Africa_NP1 of_IO the_AT 1977_MC Cup_NN1 Final_NN1 ._. 
In_II proceedings_NN2 for_IF an_AT1 interlocutory_JJ injunction_NN1 the_AT Court_NN1 of_IO Appeal_NN1 held_VVD it_PPH1 unlikely_JJ that_CST there_EX was_VBDZ a_AT1 trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 ,_, but_CCB Roskill_NP1 L.J._NP1 recognised_VVD that_CST the_AT situation_NN1 might_VM well_RR have_VHI been_VBN different_JJ if_CS ,_, instead_II21 of_II22 the_AT defendants_NN2 simply_RR threatening_VVG to_TO '_GE black_NN1 '_GE the_AT broadcast_NN1 they_PPHS2 had_VHD gone_VVN to_II the_AT B.B.C._NP1 and_CC said_JJ '_GE We_PPIS2 wish_VV0 it_PPH1 to_TO be_VBI established_VVN as_II part_NN1 of_IO our_APPGE conditions_NN2 of_IO employment_NN1 that_CST we_PPIS2 are_VBR not_XX required_VVN to_TO work_VVI on_II broadcasts_NN2 to_II South_NP1 Africa_NP1 ._. 
'_" This_DD1 received_VVD the_AT approval_NN1 of_IO Lord_NNB Diplock_NP1 in_II N._NP1 W._NP1 L._NP1 Ltd._JJ v._II Woods_NP1 but_CCB it_PPH1 has_VHZ since_RR been_VBN remarked_VVN that_CST a_AT1 '_GE trade_NN1 union_NN1 can_VM not_XX turn_VVI a_AT1 dispute_NN1 which_DDQ in_II reality_NN1 has_VHZ no_AT connection_NN1 with_IW terms_NN2 and_CC conditions_NN2 of_IO employment_NN1 into_II a_AT1 dispute_NN1 connected_VVN with_IW terms_NN2 and_CC conditions_NN2 of_IO employment_NN1 by_II insisting_VVG that_CST the_AT employer_NN1 inserts_VVZ appropriate_JJ terms_NN2 into_II the_AT contracts_NN2 of_IO employment_NN1 into_II which_DDQ he_PPHS1 enters_VVZ ._. 
'_GE An_AT1 act_NN1 is_58 '_GE in_II furtherance_NN1 '_GE of_IO a_AT1 trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 when_CS the_AT doer_NN1 genuinely_RR believes_VVZ it_PPH1 will_VM assist_VVI the_AT cause_NN1 in_II31 support_II32 of_II33 which_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ done_VDN :_: the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP has_VHZ emphatically_RR rejected_VVN the_AT addition_NN1 of_IO any_DD requirement_NN1 that_CST the_AT act_NN1 be_VBI '_" not_XX too_RG remote_JJ '_GE or_CC '_GE reasonably_RR likely_JJ to_TO succeed_VVI ._. 
'_GE (_( b_ZZ1 )_) Interference_NN1 with_IW subsisting_VVG contract_NN1 and_CC intimidation_NN1 ._. 
Section_NN1 13(1)_FO protects_VVZ the_AT most_RGT obvious_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO trade_NN1 union_NN1 coercion_NN1 ,_, i.e._REX inducing_VVG breaches_NN2 of_IO contract_NN1 and_CC threats_NN2 to_TO do_VDI so_RR ._. 
There_EX would_VM ,_, for_REX21 example_REX22 ,_, be_VBI no_AT liability_NN1 on_II facts_NN2 such_II21 as_II22 those_DD2 in_II Rookes_NP2 v._II Barnard_NP1 if_CS the_AT threats_NN2 had_VHD been_VBN made_VVN in_II31 support_II32 of_II33 a_AT1 wage_NN1 claim_NN1 ._. 
The_AT protection_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX confined_VVN to_II interference_NN1 with_IW contracts_NN2 of_IO employment_NN1 but_CCB where_RRQ the_AT contract_NN1 affected_VVN is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 contract_NN1 of_IO employment_NN1 ,_, there_EX are_VBR restrictions_NN2 on_II the_AT use_NN1 of_IO '_GE secondary_JJ action_NN1 ._. 
'_GE The_AT word_NN1 '_GE only_JJ '_GE is_VBZ important_JJ ,_, for_IF the_AT protection_NN1 is_VBZ thereby_RR confined_VVN to_II cases_NN2 in_II which_DDQ the_AT defendant_NN1 commits_VVZ no_AT other_JJ ,_, incidental_JJ tort_NN1 to_TO procure_VVI the_AT breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 ._. 
If_CS ,_, e.g._REX he_PPHS1 uses_VVZ words_NN2 amounting_VVG to_II defamation_NN1 he_PPHS1 is_VBZ not_XX protected._NNU (_( c_ZZ1 )_) Conspiracy_NN1 ._. 
Section_NN1 13(4)_FO removes_NN2% '_GE conspiracy_NN1 to_TO injure_VVI '_GE from_II the_AT field_NN1 of_IO trade_NN1 disputes_NN2 because_CS it_PPH1 involves_VVZ an_AT1 action_NN1 which_DDQ would_VM not_XX be_VBI actionable_JJ in_II tort_NN1 if_CS done_VDN without_IW agreement_NN1 or_CC combination_NN1 ._. 
The_AT scope_NN1 of_IO '_GE unlawful_JJ means_NN '_GE conspiracy_NN1 is_VBZ also_RR restricted_VVN by_II the_AT requirement_NN1 that_CST the_AT act_NN1 should_VM be_VBI one_PN1 which_DDQ would_VM be_VBI actionable_JJ in_II tort_NN1 if_CS done_VDN by_II one_MC1 person_NN1 ._. 
Thus_RR an_AT1 agreement_NN1 to_TO break_VVI a_AT1 contract_NN1 may_VM not_XX be_VBI actionable_JJ ._. 
An_AT1 agreement_NN1 to_TO induce_VVI a_AT1 breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 might_VM be_VBI thought_VVN to_TO fall_VVI outside_II this_DD1 protection_NN1 because_CS inducement_NN1 is_VBZ a_AT1 tort_NN1 if_CS committed_VVN by_II one_MC1 person_NN1 ,_, but_CCB this_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX so_RR if_CS the_AT inducement_NN1 is_VBZ protected_VVN by_II section_NN1 13(1)._FO (_( d_ZZ1 )_) Unlawful_JJ interference_NN1 with_IW trade_NN1 ._. 
This_DD1 tort_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX directly_RR referred_VVN to_II in_II section_NN1 13_MC ,_, except_CS in_CS41 so_CS42 far_CS43 as_CS44 the_AT '_GE nominate_NN1 '_GE torts_NN2 above_RL are_VBR species_NN of_IO which_DDQ it_PPH1 is_VBZ the_AT genus_NN1 ._. 
Obviously_RR it_PPH1 should_VM not_XX be_VBI possible_JJ to_TO evade_VVI the_AT statutory_JJ immunity_NN1 by_II pleading_VVG the_AT genus_NN1 and_CC relying_VVG on_II the_AT species_NN as_CSA unlawful_JJ means_NN ,_, but_CCB there_EX would_VM seem_VVI to_TO be_VBI no_AT statutory_JJ protection_NN1 if_CS the_AT unlawful_JJ means_NN take_VV0 any_DD other_JJ form_NN1 such_II21 as_II22 nuisance_NN1 or_CC trespass_NN1 ._. 
A_AT1 trade_NN1 union_NN1 or_CC union_NN1 official_NN1 calling_VVG its_APPGE members_NN2 out_RP on_II strike_NN1 is_VBZ therefore_RR protected_VVN but_CCB it_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN said_VVN to_TO be_VBI arguable_JJ that_CST an_AT1 individual_JJ striker_NN1 has_VHZ no_AT protection_NN1 against_II a_AT1 claim_NN1 that_CST he_PPHS1 uses_VVZ unlawful_JJ means_NN when_CS he_PPHS1 withdraws_VVZ his_APPGE labour_NN1 because_CS this_DD1 situation_NN1 does_VDZ not_XX appear_VVI to_TO fall_VVI within_II section_NN1 13(1)._FO (_( e_ZZ1 )_) Secondary_JJ action_NN1 ._. 
The_AT complex_JJ provisions_NN2 of_IO section_NN1 17_MC of_IO the_AT Employment_NN1 Act_NN1 1980_MC restrict_VV0 the_AT scope_NN1 of_IO the_AT section_NN1 13_MC immunity_NN1 for_IF secondary_JJ action_NN1 ._. 
'_" Nothing_PN1 in_II section_NN1 13_MC is_VBZ to_TO prevent_VVI an_AT1 act_NN1 from_II being_VBG actionable_JJ in_II tort_NN1 on_II a_AT1 ground_NN1 specified_VVN in_II section_NN1 13(1)_FO where_RRQ (_( a_ZZ1 )_) the_AT contract_NN1 interfered_VVN with_IW in_II31 respect_II32 of_II33 which_DDQ the_AT action_NN1 is_VBZ brought_VVN is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 contract_NN1 of_IO employment_NN1 and_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) there_EX has_VHZ been_VBN secondary_JJ action_NN1 which_DDQ does_VDZ not_XX satisfy_VVI the_AT requirements_NN2 of_IO section_NN1 17_MC ._. 
Secondary_JJ action_NN1 is_VBZ action_NN1 interfering_VVG with_IW a_AT1 contract_NN1 of_IO employment_NN1 in_II one_MC1 of_IO the_AT ways_NN2 specified_VVN in_II section_NN1 13(1)_FO where_RRQ the_AT employer_NN1 under_II that_DD1 contract_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX a_AT1 party_NN1 to_II the_AT trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 ._. 
Hence_RR if_CS ,_, in_II pursuance_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 between_II A_ZZ1 and_CC C_ZZ1 ,_, A_ZZ1 induces_VVZ the_AT employees_NN2 of_IO B_ZZ1 ,_, with_IW whom_PNQO C_NP1 has_VHZ a_AT1 contract_NN1 ,_, to_TO break_VVI their_APPGE contracts_NN2 of_IO employment_NN1 with_II41 a_II42 view_II43 to_II44 bringing_VVG about_RP a_AT1 breach_NN1 of_IO the_AT contract_NN1 between_II B_ZZ1 and_CC C_ZZ1 the_AT action_NN1 is_VBZ presumptively_RR unlawful_JJ ._. 
However_RR ,_, this_DD1 is_VBZ not_XX the_AT end_NN1 of_IO the_AT matter_NN1 for_IF the_AT scope_NN1 of_IO this_DD1 withdrawal_NN1 of_IO immunity_NN1 is_VBZ limited_VVN by_II the_AT remainder_NN1 of_IO section_NN1 17_MC ,_, which_DDQ provides_VVZ three_MC routes_NN2 through_II which_DDQ secondary_JJ action_NN1 may_VM finally_RR be_VBI held_VVN to_TO be_VBI not_XX unlawful_JJ ._. 
The_AT principal_JJ provision_NN1 is_VBZ section_NN1 17(3)_FO which_DDQ provides_VVZ that_CST secondary_JJ action_NN1 is_VBZ not_XX unlawful_JJ it_PPH1 '_VBZ (_( a_ZZ1 )_) the_AT purpose_NN1 or_CC principal_JJ purpose_NN1 of_IO the_AT secondary_JJ action_NN1 was_VBDZ directly_RR to_TO prevent_VVI or_CC disrupt_VVI the_AT supply_NN1 during_II the_AT dispute_NN1 of_IO goods_NN2 or_CC services_NN2 between_II an_AT1 employer_NN1 who_PNQS is_VBZ a_AT1 party_NN1 to_II the_AT dispute_NN1 and_CC the_AT employer_NN1 under_II the_AT contract_NN1 of_IO employment_NN1 to_II which_DDQ the_AT secondary_JJ action_NN1 relates_VVZ ;_; and_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) the_AT secondary_JJ action_NN1 (_( together_RL with_IW any_DD corresponding_JJ action_NN1 relating_VVG to_II other_JJ contracts_NN2 of_IO employment_NN1 with_IW the_AT same_DA employer_NN1 )_) was_VBDZ likely_JJ to_TO achieve_VVI that_DD1 purpose_NN1 ._. 
'_" This_DD1 was_VBDZ considered_VVN by_II the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP in_II Merkur_NP1 Island_NNL1 Shipping_VVG Corporation._NP1 v._II Laughton_NP1 where_RRQ ,_, it_PPH1 will_VM be_VBI remembered_VVN ,_, the_AT I.T.F._NP1 union_NN1 ,_, in_II dispute_NN1 with_IW Merkur_NP1 Island_NNL1 ,_, a_AT1 flag_NN1 of_IO convenience_NN1 shipowner_NN1 ,_, induced_VVD tug-boat_JJ crews_NN2 to_TO refuse_VVI ,_, in_II breach_NN1 of_IO their_APPGE contracts_NN2 of_IO employment_NN1 ,_, to_TO move_VVI Merkur_NP1 Island_NNL1 's_GE vessel_NN1 ,_, thereby_RR interfering_VVG with_IW the_AT charter_NN1 of_IO the_AT vessel_NN1 to_II Leif_NP1 Hoegh_NP1 ._. 
Having_VHG said_VVN that_CST any_DD removal_NN1 of_IO the_AT immunity_NN1 by_II section_NN1 17_MC enured_VVD for_IF the_AT benefit_NN1 not_XX only_RR of_IO the_AT person_NN1 against_II whom_PNQO the_AT secondary_JJ action_NN1 was_VBDZ taken_VVN but_CCB also_RR for_IF that_DD1 of_IO the_AT employer_NN1 who_PNQS was_VBDZ party_NN1 to_II the_AT trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 ,_, Lord_NNB Diplock_NP1 held_VVD that_CST the_AT action_NN1 by_II I.T.F._NP1 was_VBDZ not_XX protected_VVN ._. 
Merkur_NP1 Island_NNL1 were_VBDR not_XX parties_NN2 to_II any_DD contract_NN1 for_IF the_AT supply_NN1 of_IO towage_NN1 services_NN2 ,_, so_CS it_PPH1 was_VBDZ not_XX possible_JJ to_TO say_VVI that_CST the_AT purpose_NN1 of_IO the_AT action_NN1 was_VBDZ to_TO prevent_VVI the_AT supply_NN1 of_IO services_NN2 between_II an_AT1 employer_NN1 who_PNQS was_VBDZ party_NN1 to_II the_AT dispute_NN1 (_( Merkur_NP1 Island_NNL1 )_) and_CC the_AT employer_NN1 under_II the_AT contract_NN1 of_IO employment_NN1 to_II which_DDQ the_AT secondary_JJ action_NN1 related_VVN (_( the_AT tug_NN1 owners_NN2 )_) ._. 
Similar_JJ provisions_NN2 are_VBR contained_VVN in_II the_AT Act_NN1 to_TO govern_VVI secondary_JJ action_NN1 aimed_VVN at_II disruption_NN1 of_IO supply_NN1 between_II any_DD person_NN1 and_CC an_AT1 associated_JJ employer_NN1 of_IO the_AT employer_NN1 party_NN1 to_II the_AT dispute_NN1 where_CS the_AT goods_NN2 or_CC services_NN2 are_VBR in_II substitution_NN1 for_IF goods_NN2 or_CC services_NN2 which_DDQ but_II21 for_II22 the_AT dispute_NN1 would_VM have_VHI fallen_VVN to_TO be_VBI supplied_VVN to_II or_CC by_II the_AT employer_NN1 who_PNQS is_VBZ party_NN1 to_II the_AT dispute._NNU (_( f_ZZ1 )_) Picketing_VVG ._. 
Picketing_VVG in_II various_JJ forms_NN2 has_VHZ shown_VVN itself_PPX1 to_TO be_VBI one_MC1 of_IO the_AT most_RGT effective_JJ forms_NN2 of_IO industrial_JJ action_NN1 ._. 
At_II common_JJ law_NN1 it_PPH1 may_VM be_VBI unlawful_JJ as_CSA amounting_VVG to_II a_AT1 trespass_NN1 to_II the_AT highway_NN1 ,_, or_CC a_AT1 public_NN1 or_CC private_JJ nuisance_NN1 ,_, or_CC as_CSA involving_VVG the_AT inducement_NN1 or_CC procuring_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 breach_NN1 of_IO contract_NN1 ._. 
However_RR ,_, under_II section_NN1 15_MC of_IO the_AT Trade_NN1 Union_NN1 and_CC Labour_JJ Relations_NN2 Act_VV0 1974_MC it_PPH1 is_VBZ lawful_JJ for_IF a_AT1 person_NN1 in_II contemplation_NN1 or_CC furtherance_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 to_TO attend_VVI at_II or_CC near_II his_APPGE own_DA place_NN1 of_IO work_NN1 '_GE for_IF the_AT purpose_NN1 only_RR of_IO peacefully_RR obtaining_VVG or_CC communicating_JJ information_NN1 ,_, or_CC of_IO peacefully_RR persuading_VVG any_DD person_NN1 to_TO work_VVI or_CC abstain_VVI from_II working_VVG ._. 
'_" '_GE Secondary_JJ action_NN1 '_GE (_( e.g._REX persuading_VVG a_AT1 supplier_NN1 's_GE lorry_NN1 driver_NN1 not_XX to_TO deliver_VVI so_BCL21 as_BCL22 to_TO disrupt_VVI a_AT1 commercial_JJ contract_NN1 )_) is_VBZ protected_VVN if_CS the_AT attendance_NN1 is_VBZ lawful_JJ under_II the_AT 1974_MC Act_NN1 ,_, but_CCB there_EX is_VBZ no_AT protection_NN1 for_IF '_GE secondary_JJ picketing_NN1 ,_, '_GE i._MC e._ZZ1 attendance_NN1 at_II the_AT premises_NN2 of_IO the_AT employer_NN1 's_GE supplier_NN1 or_CC customer._NNU (_( g_ZZ1 )_) Ballots_NN2 ._. 
Yet_RR another_DD1 basis_NN1 for_IF the_AT removal_NN1 of_IO the_AT immunity_NN1 granted_VVN by_II the_AT 1974_MC Act_NN1 is_VBZ to_TO be_VBI found_VVN in_RR21 Part_RR22 II_MC of_IO the_AT Trade_NN1 Union_NN1 Act_NN1 1984_MC ._. 
This_DD1 requires_VVZ action_NN1 taken_VVN by_II a_AT1 trade_NN1 union_NN1 to_TO be_VBI supported_VVN by_II a_AT1 majority_NN1 in_II a_AT1 secret_JJ ballot_NN1 of_IO all_DB those_DD2 reasonably_RR expected_VVN to_TO take_VVI part_NN1 in_II the_AT action_NN1 ,_, and_CC in_II31 view_II32 of_II33 the_AT practicalities_NN2 of_IO organising_VVG a_AT1 ballot_NN1 and_CC the_AT fact_NN1 that_CST advance_VV0 approval_NN1 of_IO action_NN1 is_VBZ valid_JJ for_IF only_RR four_MC weeks_NNT2 puts_VVZ a_AT1 serious_JJ constraint_NN1 upon_II the_AT taking_NN1 of_IO effective_JJ action_NN1 even_RR where_CS that_DD1 has_VHZ overwhelming_JJ support_NN1 ._. 
Detailed_JJ modifications_NN2 of_IO the_AT ballot_NN1 procedure_NN1 are_VBR to_TO be_VBI found_VVN in_II sections_NN2 12_MC to_II 18_MC of_IO the_AT Employment_NN1 Act_NN1 1988._MC (_( h_ZZ1 )_) Injunctions_NN2 ._. 
Where_CS an_AT1 employer_NN1 is_VBZ the_AT victim_NN1 of_IO industrial_JJ action_NN1 his_APPGE primary_JJ purpose_NN1 in_II embarking_VVG on_II litigation_NN1 is_VBZ usually_RR (_( and_CC this_DD1 is_VBZ likely_JJ to_TO remain_VVI the_AT case_NN1 notwithstanding_II the_AT extension_NN1 of_IO tort_NN1 liability_NN1 to_II trade_NN1 unions_NN2 )_) to_TO get_VVI an_AT1 injunction_NN1 ._. 
Since_CS an_AT1 injunction_NN1 may_VM be_VBI granted_VVN on_II an_AT1 interlocutory_JJ basis_NN1 pending_II trial_NN1 (_( which_DDQ may_VM not_XX take_VVI place_NN1 for_IF many_DA2 months_NNT2 )_) and_CC ,_, in_II cases_NN2 of_IO great_JJ urgency_NN1 ,_, on_II an_AT1 ex_JJ21 parte_JJ22 basis_NN1 ,_, it_PPH1 is_VBZ clear_JJ that_CST there_EX is_VBZ a_AT1 possibility_NN1 of_IO the_AT union_NN1 side_NN1 being_VBG robbed_VVN of_IO the_AT initiative_NN1 in_II an_AT1 industrial_JJ action_NN1 ._. 
To_TO meet_VVI this_DD1 point_NN1 ,_, section_NN1 17_MC of_IO the_AT Trade_NN1 Union_NN1 and_CC Labour_JJ Relations_NN2 Act_VV0 1974_MC contains_VVZ two_MC provisions_NN2 ._. 
First_MD ,_, where_CS an_AT1 application_NN1 for_IF an_AT1 injunction_NN1 is_VBZ made_VVN ex_RR21 parte_RR22 and_CC the_AT defendant_NN1 claims_NN2 ,_, or_CC in_II the_AT opinion_NN1 of_IO the_AT court_NN1 would_VM be_VBI likely_JJ to_TO claim_VVI ,_, that_CST he_PPHS1 acted_VVD in_II contemplation_NN1 or_CC furtherance_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 ,_, the_AT court_NN1 shall_VM not_XX grant_VVI the_AT injunction_NN1 unless_CS satisfied_JJ that_CST all_DB steps_NN2 which_DDQ in_II the_AT circumstances_NN2 were_VBDR reasonable_RR have_VH0 been_VBN taken_VVN with_II41 a_II42 view_II43 to_II44 securing_VVG that_DD1 notice_NN1 of_IO the_AT application_NN1 and_CC an_AT1 opportunity_NN1 of_IO being_VBG heard_VVN with_II31 respect_II32 to_II33 the_AT application_NN1 have_VH0 been_VBN given_VVN to_II him_PPHO1 ._. 
This_DD1 reduces_VVZ the_AT risk_NN1 of_IO the_AT defendants_NN2 in_II a_AT1 '_GE labour_NN1 injunction_NN1 '_GE case_NN1 being_VBG taken_VVN unawares_RR ,_, but_CCB contains_VVZ nothing_PN1 about_II how_RRQ the_AT court_NN1 should_VM proceed_VVI when_RRQ both_DB2 parties_NN2 are_VBR before_CS it_PPH1 ._. 
At_II the_AT time_NNT1 when_RRQ the_AT 1974_MC Act_NN1 was_VBDZ passed_VVN it_PPH1 was_VBDZ thought_VVN that_CST the_AT issue_NN1 on_II an_AT1 application_NN1 for_IF an_AT1 interlocutory_JJ injunction_NN1 was_VBDZ whether_CSW the_AT plaintiff_NN1 had_VHD established_VVN a_AT1 prima_JJ21 facie_JJ22 case_NN1 ,_, but_CCB in_II American_JJ Cyanamid_JJ Ltd._JJ v._II Ethicon_NP1 Ltd._JJ the_AT House_NN1 of_IO Lords_NP held_JJ that_CST the_AT test_NN1 was_VBDZ rather_RG more_RGR favourable_JJ to_II the_AT plaintiff_NN1 ,_, was_VBDZ there_RL '_VBZ a_AT1 serious_JJ question_NN1 to_TO be_VBI tried_VVN ?_? 
'_" To_TO meet_VVI this_DD1 development_NN1 section_NN1 17(2)_FO was_VBDZ inserted_VVN into_II the_AT Act_NN1 and_CC provides_VVZ that_CST where_CS an_AT1 application_NN1 is_VBZ made_VVN for_IF an_AT1 interlocutory_JJ injunction_NN1 and_CC the_AT party_NN1 against_II whom_PNQO it_PPH1 is_VBZ sought_VVN claims_NN2 that_CST he_PPHS1 acted_VVD in_II contemplation_NN1 or_CC furtherance_NN1 of_IO a_AT1 trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 ,_, the_AT court_NN1 shall_VM ,_, in_II exercising_VVG its_APPGE discretion_NN1 whether_CSW31 or_CSW32 not_CSW33 to_TO grant_VVI the_AT injunction_NN1 ,_, have_VH0 regard_NN1 to_II the_AT likelihood_NN1 of_IO that_DD1 party_NN1 's_VBZ succeeding_VVG at_II the_AT trial_NN1 of_IO the_AT action_NN1 in_II establishing_VVG the_AT matter_NN1 which_DDQ would_VM afford_VVI a_AT1 defence_NN1 under_II the_AT Act_NN1 ._. 
Under_II the_AT American_JJ Cyanamid_JJ decision_NN1 the_AT court_NN1 must_VM ask_VVI itself_PPX1 whether_CSW the_AT plaintiff_NN1 has_VHZ shown_VVN (_( a_ZZ1 )_) a_AT1 serious_JJ question_NN1 to_TO be_VBI tried_VVN and_CC (_( b_ZZ1 )_) that_CST the_AT '_GE balance_NN1 of_IO convenience_NN1 '_GE is_VBZ in_II his_APPGE favour_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 is_VBZ not_XX very_RG clear_JJ whether_CSW section_NN1 17(2)_FO adds_VVZ a_AT1 third_MD element_NN1 or_CC is_VBZ subsumed_VVN in_II (_( b_ZZ1 )_) ,_, but_CCB it_PPH1 is_VBZ clear_JJ that_CST it_PPH1 was_VBDZ intended_VVN to_TO be_VBI more_RGR difficult_JJ to_TO obtain_VVI an_AT1 interlocutory_JJ injunction_NN1 in_II trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 cases_NN2 than_CSN in_II others_NN2 ._. 
If_CS the_AT affidavits_NN2 suggest_VV0 that_CST it_PPH1 is_VBZ more_RGR likely_JJ than_CSN not_XX that_CST the_AT defendant_NN1 would_VM succeed_VVI in_II establishing_VVG a_AT1 statutory_JJ immunity_NN1 that_CST is_VBZ a_AT1 weighty_JJ factor_NN1 in_II31 favour_II32 of_II33 refusing_VVG to_TO grant_VVI an_AT1 injunction_NN1 ._. 
It_PPH1 has_VHZ been_VBN suggested_VVN that_CST now_CS21 that_CS22 unions_NN2 (_( and_CC not_XX merely_RR officials_NN2 )_) may_VM in_II certain_JJ circumstances_NN2 be_VBI liable_JJ in_II damages_NN2 for_IF unlawful_JJ industrial_JJ action_NN1 it_PPH1 is_VBZ more_RGR likely_JJ that_CST an_AT1 employer_NN1 will_VM pursue_VVI his_APPGE claim_NN1 to_II a_AT1 full_JJ trial_NN1 and_CC there_EX is_VBZ less_DAR reason_NN1 to_TO refuse_VVI an_AT1 interlocutory_JJ injunction_NN1 in_II trade_NN1 dispute_NN1 cases_NN2 ;_; but_CCB it_PPH1 has_VHZ also_RR been_VBN said_VVN that_CST the_AT '_GE right_NN1 to_TO strike_VVI '_GE is_VBZ a_AT1 valuable_JJ (_( indeed_RR essential_JJ )_) element_NN1 in_II the_AT system_NN1 of_IO collective_JJ bargaining_NN1 and_CC that_CST it_PPH1 '_" should_VM not_XX be_VBI rendered_VVN less_RGR valuable_JJ than_CSN Parliament_NN1 intended_VVN by_II too_RG fanciful_JJ or_CC ingenious_JJ a_AT1 view_NN1 of_IO what_DDQ might_VM develop_VVI into_II a_AT1 serious_JJ issue_NN1 to_TO be_VBI tried_VVN ._. '_" 
