Robinson v Balmain New Ferry Co Ltd
It is not false imprisonment to require a person to comply with the reasonable conditions on which he entered premises before allowing him to leave.
Facts
Mr Robinson paid a penny to enter a wharf in Sydney, in order to take a ferry across the harbour. Notices said that a penny had to be paid on entering and leaving the wharf. He then changed his mind, because the ferry had just left, and wanted to leave by the way he had come in, but refused to pay another penny to do so. The ferry company prevented him from leaving until he paid. He sued for false imprisonment.
Legal principle
The Privy Council held that there was no false imprisonment. Lord Loreburn LC said that there is no law requiring the defendants to make the exit from their premises gratuitous to people who come there upon a definite contract which involves their leaving the wharf by another way, and that the defendants were entitled to impose a reasonable condition before allowing him to pass through a turnstile from which he had no right to exit except on those terms. He could have left by taking the ferry.
Related cases on trespass to the person
- Austin v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 1 AC 564
- Bird v Jones (1845) 7 QB 742
- Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172
- F v West Berkshire Health Authority (Re F (Mental Patient: Sterilisation)) [1990] 2 AC 1
- Herd v Weardale Steel, Coal and Coke Co Ltd [1915] AC 67
- Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232
- Meering v Grahame-White Aviation Co Ltd (1919) 122 LT 44
- Murray v Ministry of Defence [1988] 1 WLR 692
Studying tort law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
