Gregory v Piper
🧑⚖️ Facts of the Case:
The dispute was between Mr. Gregory and Mr. Piper, who were neighbors.
Gregory had a legal right of way through a passage that went between Piper’s property and another.
Gregory had made a habit of sweeping rubbish and debris from his property into the passage.
In retaliation, Piper instructed his servant to pile rubbish (like dirt and stones) against Gregory’s gate, which blocked Gregory’s access to the passageway.
Importantly, Piper told his servant not to put the rubbish on Gregory’s land, but the way it was done caused the rubbish to spill over onto Gregory’s property, obstructing his gate.
⚖️ Issue:
Was Piper liable for trespass, even though:
He did not physically enter the land himself?
He instructed his servant not to put the rubbish directly onto Gregory’s property?
🧑⚖️ Judgment:
The court held that Piper was liable for trespass.
🧾 Legal Reasoning:
Trespass to land does not require physical entry by the person; it is enough if the person directly causes an intrusion.
Although Piper told his servant not to put the rubbish on Gregory’s land, the natural and probable consequence of his instructions was that the rubbish would end up there.
Because Piper had set in motion the events that led to the trespass, he was responsible for it.
📌 Principles Established:
Trespass includes indirect actions:
If someone intentionally causes an object (like rubbish) to go onto another's land, it is still trespass, even if they don’t go there themselves.
Intention is not strictly necessary:
Even if a person did not intend for a trespass to happen, they can still be liable if it was a foreseeable result of their actions.
Principal and agent liability:
A master is liable for the actions of their servant if the servant was acting within the scope of their instructions.
📚 Key Quote:
“If the defendant set in motion that which necessarily brings the rubbish on the plaintiff’s property, the defendant is answerable.”
— Best CJ
✅ Conclusion:
Gregory v Piper stands for the idea that you can commit trespass without physically stepping onto someone’s land — it is enough to cause an object (or person) to do so as a direct consequence of your actions. In this case, Piper was liable because his instructions caused the obstruction on Gregory’s property, even if he tried to avoid a direct order to trespass.
RELATED Blog
0 comments