Tahu, a constable with the New Zealand Police, was walking back home from the Fish' n Chips shop with his life partner Marigold. It was his day off and he thought he would propose to Marigold. Tau suddenly heard a woman's voice calling out desperately for help. The voice was coming from inside a house a few doors down from where Tahu and Marigold were walking down a street. Tahu then heard an angry male voice shouting and a woman's scream.After some hesitation, Tahu told Marigold to wait on the street with their warm and fragrant wrapped fish fillets and julienne fries and he ran to the property from where the scream came.It was surrounded by a waist-high wooden picket fence. He tried to push open the gate in the fence, but it would not open. It seemed to be locked. He briefly saw a sign on the gate that said: "Beware of the Dog." There was also a hidden sign that read: "No Admittance to Nosy People".Tahu then leapt over the gate. He ran up the path to the front door's steps and knocked loudly. A woman appeared at the door. She appeared to be crying and was distressed. Tahu asked if she needed help. She replied: "It's my husband - he's gone mad. Please help me".Tahu went inside into the hallway of the house. He then went through an internal door to a sitting room where he saw a man standing in the middle of the room.

Transcribed Image Text:

held an empty bottle of whisky and in the other, a large object, in fact a frozen leg of lamb. He was swaying slightly as he stood. "Who the hell are you?" shouted the man. "Get out of my house at once". "Hey matey", said Tahu, "I think you should put down that leg of lamb. Your wife's upset and scared, and you are going to hurt yourself". "I said, get out", shouted the man. "Fine, just put the bottle and the leg of lamb down", said Tahu. Then, the drunk man lunged towards Tahu, brandishing the bottle and the leg of lamb. Realising the situation was dangerous, Tahu decided to leave. But as he reached the front door, he heard a loud barking from a dog that was running down the hallway towards him. "Attack!" roared the drunk man, who was now in the hallway. The Rottweiler dog, attracted by the smell of fish coming from Tohu's clothes, leapt up at Tahu, who lost his balance on the outside steps leading up to the front door and fell into a large rose bush beside the front door. The dog continued to bark scarily at Tahu and appeared ready for another attack. Marigold, waiting outside the front gate, heard the loud barking and saw Tahu under attack from the Rottweiler. Marigold leapt over the gate and ran to help Tahu. With Marigold's help (she brandished a piece of fish at the dog), Tahu managed to get up from where he was lying in the garden and they both ran towards the front gate. Marigold managed to wrench it open (it was not locked, just very stiff to open). Tahu and Marigold then ran down the road, not before throwing into the first bin they saw whatever was left of what was supposed to be their evening (and romantic) meal. Charlie, the drunk man with the bottle of whisky and leg of lamb, is now bringing an action based on the civil tort of trespass against Tahu and Marigold, claiming that Tahu and Marigold were both trespassers. He decided to ignore (and so should you) any issues arising from these facts that do not relate to the tort of trespass, such as endangering the life of an animal, damage to property or improper disposal of food waste into a recycling bin. Your task: Based on the law in Robson v Hallett, you are to analyse whether Tahu or Marigold were trespassers at any time in the above scenario. You should: 1. Identify the issues that arise. 2. State what law in Robson v Hallett is relevant to each issue. 3. For each issue, name at least one key difference in these facts as compared with the facts of Robson v Hallett. Then state whether the difference is significant enough (in your opinion) to mean that the Court is likely to distinguish (that is, not follow) Robson v Hallett on this issue. 4. Conclude on whether Tahu or Marigold was a trespasser at any time. held an empty bottle of whisky and in the other, a large object, in fact a frozen leg of lamb. He was swaying slightly as he stood. "Who the hell are you?" shouted the man. "Get out of my house at once". "Hey matey", said Tahu, "I think you should put down that leg of lamb. Your wife's upset and scared, and you are going to hurt yourself". "I said, get out", shouted the man. "Fine, just put the bottle and the leg of lamb down", said Tahu. Then, the drunk man lunged towards Tahu, brandishing the bottle and the leg of lamb. Realising the situation was dangerous, Tahu decided to leave. But as he reached the front door, he heard a loud barking from a dog that was running down the hallway towards him. "Attack!" roared the drunk man, who was now in the hallway. The Rottweiler dog, attracted by the smell of fish coming from Tohu's clothes, leapt up at Tahu, who lost his balance on the outside steps leading up to the front door and fell into a large rose bush beside the front door. The dog continued to bark scarily at Tahu and appeared ready for another attack. Marigold, waiting outside the front gate, heard the loud barking and saw Tahu under attack from the Rottweiler. Marigold leapt over the gate and ran to help Tahu. With Marigold's help (she brandished a piece of fish at the dog), Tahu managed to get up from where he was lying in the garden and they both ran towards the front gate. Marigold managed to wrench it open (it was not locked, just very stiff to open). Tahu and Marigold then ran down the road, not before throwing into the first bin they saw whatever was left of what was supposed to be their evening (and romantic) meal. Charlie, the drunk man with the bottle of whisky and leg of lamb, is now bringing an action based on the civil tort of trespass against Tahu and Marigold, claiming that Tahu and Marigold were both trespassers. He decided to ignore (and so should you) any issues arising from these facts that do not relate to the tort of trespass, such as endangering the life of an animal, damage to property or improper disposal of food waste into a recycling bin. Your task: Based on the law in Robson v Hallett, you are to analyse whether Tahu or Marigold were trespassers at any time in the above scenario. You should: 1. Identify the issues that arise. 2. State what law in Robson v Hallett is relevant to each issue. 3. For each issue, name at least one key difference in these facts as compared with the facts of Robson v Hallett. Then state whether the difference is significant enough (in your opinion) to mean that the Court is likely to distinguish (that is, not follow) Robson v Hallett on this issue. 4. Conclude on whether Tahu or Marigold was a trespasser at any time.