Introduction

In this research paper, firstly I will give a brief summary of facts of the hypothetical case

given, then I will give a summary of all potential tort claims that arise out of it. I will also

analyze two of those claims in depth by providing arguments from both plaintiff’s and

defendant’s side followed by potential judgement based on the arguments.

Summary of facts

Alice lived in the apartments of The Tulip on the seventh floor. Bharath moved into the

apartment below Alice on the sixth floor. A few days later, Bharath heard loud music playing

from upstairs. He went to Alice’s apartment and told her that he can hear her music. Alice

apologized curtly and turned down the music later. After a couple of days, Bharath again heard

the music, but at a softer volume. He ignored it as he was soon leaving for the courtyard

downstairs for the Dussehra festival. He sang and played drum there until 2am. A few days later,

Bharath again heard the music playing loudly and finally went upstairs to confront Alice. Alice

laughed at him when she opened her door and told him that if he can play the drums and sing

until 2am, keeping her awake for Dussehra, Diwali, etc., then she can practice her music at an

appropriate level she deems during the day. Bharath got angry and stopped her from closing the

door, barged into her place and broke her stereo saying: “If you play your music loudly again, it

won’t just be your stereo that gets broken!”

Summary of claims

The tort of Nuisance is committed when a person unlawfully interferes with another

person’s use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it1. In the present

case, Bharath is the plaintiff and Alice is the defendant (Bharath v Alice). Bharath can file this

suit on various grounds: a) on very first instance when he heard loud music playing from upstairs
1
DR. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts 179 (Dr. Narender Kumar,,ed., Allahabad Law Agency 2017).

1
as only Alice lived on the seventh floor and it was the top floor, (b) when Bharath again heard

the music (at softer volume) while he was leaving for the courtyard downstairs for the Dussehra

festival, (c) when he heard the music playing loudly again and finally went to confront Alice.

Another nuisance case can also be filed where Alice is the plaintiff and Bharath is the

defendant (Alice v Bharath). Alice can file the suit on the grounds that during the celebrations of

Dussehra, Bharath played drum and sang until 2AM, creating nuisance and keeping Alice awake.

The tort of Trespass to Land is that form of trespass which is committed when a person

unjustifiably interferes with the possession of land.2 In this case, Alice is the plaintiff and

Bharath is the defendant (Alice v Bharath). Alice can bring this claim on the grounds that when

she was closing the door, Bharath stopped her from closing it, barged into her place and started

throwing her stuff.

The tort of Conversion consists in willfully and without any justification dealing with the

goods in such a manner that another person, who is entitled to immediate use and possession of

the same, is deprived of that.3 In this case, Alice is the plaintiff and Bharath is the defendant

(Alice v Bharath). Alice can bring this claim on the grounds that Bharath threw her stereo system

onto the floor, breaking it. The

tort of Assault consists of an act of the defendant which causes to the plaintiff reasonable

apprehension of the infliction of a battery on him by the defendant4. In this case, Alice is the

plaintiff and Bharath is the defendant and the action that initiated the claim is that, after breaking

Alice’s stereo Bharath said that “If you play your music loudly again, it won’t just be your stereo

that gets broken!”. However, this claim would fail as stated in Tubervell v Savage5 it is a

2
19 W.E. Peel & J. Goudkamp, Winfield & Jolowicz 427 (South Asian edition, Sweet & Maxwell 2019).
3
DR. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts 367 (Dr. Narender Kumar,,ed., Allahabad Law Agency 2017).
4
Id at 140.
5
Tubervell v Savage [1669] 1 Mod. 3; 86 E.R. 684.

2
conditional threat6. Bharath’s words make it clear that he is threatening to beat him only if he

plays music loudly.

Analysis of the claim of Trespass to land (Alice v Bharath)

The facts are that, Bharath got angry because he felt that Alice was mocking his religion,

he stopped her from closing the door and barged into her place. To prove trespass to land, we

will have to prove four things: (1) there was an act, (2) the act should be direct and immediate,

(3) it should interfere with plaintiff’s land and (4) the land should be possessed by plaintiff.

There is no need to prove any damages for an action of trespass because trespass is actionable

per se7. The act here is stopping Alice from closing the door and entering her apartment forcibly.

The act was direct and immediate as Bharath himself entered her apartment and at that very

moment. He interfered with Alice’s land as he entered into her apartment forcibly and without

her consent. In Graham v Peat8, the plaintiff was holding the land under a lease which was void

but he was nevertheless entitled to bring an action for trespass against the defendant who had

entered that land without lawful justification and it was held that any possession is a legal

possession against the wrongdoer9. So the mere fact that Alice lives in that apartment is enough

for her to show her possession over the apartment and bring an action for trespass against

Bharath. Bharath can be held liable for trespass to land as all the elements for it are satisfied.

Defence

Bharath has no good defence which can save him from the liability arising out of his acts.

All he can argue is that what he did was an impulse action to the comments and rude behaviour

6
19 W.E. Peel & J. Goudkamp, Winfield & Jolowicz 65 (South Asian edition, Sweet & Maxwell 2019).
7
Id at 428.
8
Graham v Peat [1801] 1 East 244.
9
DR. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts 358 (Dr. Narender Kumar,,ed., Allahabad Law Agency 2017).

3
shown by Alice and the nuisance she created despite being told about the inconveniences faced

by Bharath.

Judgement

It was held in Entick v Carrington10 that, “every invasion of property, be it ever so

minute, is a trespass”11. The defendant will be held liable for trespass of land as all the elements

for trespass are satisfied and he does not have a valid defence for entering claimant’s house.

Analysis of the claim of Conversion (Alice v Bharath)

The facts relevant for this claim are that, when Bharath barged into Alice’s place, he

threw her expensive ($2,000 USD), imported stereo system onto the floor, breaking it. To prove

conversion, we will have to prove six things: (1) there was an act, (2) that act should be direct,

(3) it should interfere with plaintiff’s goods, (4) the goods should be possessed by plaintiff, (5)

there should be an intend to convert goods, (6) there should be damages. There was an act when

Bharath entered forcibly in Alice’s apartment and threw her stereo. He himself entered into the

apartment and threw the stereo by lifting it with his own hands, so the act can be said direct. By

throwing and breaking the stereo, he interfered with the Alice’s goods. In Rogers v Kennay12, it

was held that the claimant can maintain the action if at the time of defendant’s act he had:

ownership or possession of goods; or possession of them; or an immediate right to possess them,

but without either ownership or actual possession13. Alice had both the ownership as well as

possession of the stereo. When Bharath threw the stereo, he or any reasonable man would know

that it would most probably break. In other words we can say that he threw the stereo to break it,

so his intentions to break stereo, thus converting it are pretty clear from his actions. The last

10
Entick v Carrington [1765] 19 St. Tr. 1030, 1066.
11
DR. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts 359 (Dr. Narender Kumar,,ed., Allahabad Law Agency 2017).
12
Rogers v Kennay [1846] 9 Q.B. 594.
13
19 W.E. Peel & J. Goudkamp, Winfield & Jolowicz 550 (South Asian edition, Sweet & Maxwell 2019).

4
element which we have to prove is damages. Alice suffered damages as her $2,000 USD

expensive stereo is broken. Bharath can be held liable for conversion as all the elements for it are

satisfied.

Defence

The defendant does not have any good defence and all he can argue is that claimant

himself is not innocent and created nuisance on various occasions despite being told of the

inconvenience caused due to his loud music and what Bharath did was an impulse action because

Alice paid no heed to the complaints made by him and also mocked his religion.

Judgement

The defendant would be held liable for conversion. Destruction of a chattel belonging to

another is an act of conversion, for its effect is to deprive the owner of it altogether14. In

Richardson v Atkinson15, the defendant drew some wine out of the plaintiff’s cask and mixed

water with the remainder. He was held liable for the conversion of the whole cask as he had

converted part of the contents by taking them away and the remaining part by destroying their

identity16. Same is the case here, where Bharath by breaking the stereo has destroyed its identity

and converted it into a useless piece of metal which is of no use to Alice.

Conclusion

This research paper deals with four potential claims arising out of the given hypothetical

situation and an in-depth analysis of such two claims, i.e. trespass to land and conversion. In both

claims, the court assessed the arguments of both the plaintiff and the defendant and reached a

suitable verdict.

Bibliography
14
Ratanlal & Dhirajlal 443(28th edition, LexisNexis).
15
Richardson v Atkinson [1723] 1 Str. 576.
16
DR. R.K. Bangia, Law of Torts 367 (Dr. Narender Kumar,,ed., Allahabad Law Agency 2017).

5
Books

DR. R.K. Bangia, Law of Tort (Dr. Narender Kumar, ed., Allahabad Law Agency 2017).

19 W.E. Peel & J. Goudkamp, WINFIELD & JOLOWICZ TORT (South Asian edition, Sweet &

Maxwell 2019).

Ratanlal & Dhirajlal ( 28TH edition, LexisNexis)

Cases

Entick v Carrington [1765] 19 St. Tr. 1030, 1066.

Graham v Peat [1801] 1 East 244.

Richardson v Atkinson [1723] 1 Str. 576.

Rogers v Kennay [1846] 9 Q.B. 594.

Tubervell v Savage [1669] 1 Mod. 3; 86 E.R. 684.