Cole v Turner

Mentioned in Source 3 and Source 4.

Facts and Desisions

It was held by Holt CJ that 'the least touching of someone in anger is battery'. (source 3, lines 16-17)

How did it change the law?

Established intent, and how it is different from social touching. (source 4 lines 1-3) Narrowed the law of trespass, as if there is no intent it is only negligence. It is a leading case, as it was heard in the House of Lords.

Has it achieved justice in the law?

What is its significance for the developments of the law?

Lord Holts desciption of intent was interpreted as meaning 'hostile' in Wilson v Pringle. (Source 4, lines 6-16).  Lord Goff had different views about its meaning in the case of Collins v Wilcock which was before Wilson v Pringle, and after it in Re F (source 4, lines 23-28).

References to other cases.

Letang v Cooper also looked at intent being needed.