Ricardo in the kitchen. In fact, Ricardo was on a valid working holiday visa. Ricardo would likely have a possible recourse for suit against the State Immigration Department for nuisance, especially if he would not lose his job over the incident since special damage to the plaintiff is not required. Rather, in an action for false imprisonment the detention and the "directness" of the cause must be proven. Then, it is for the defendant to demonstrate the lawfulness in justification. There is no onus on the plaintiff in establishing unlawfulness as one of the elements of the tort as the liberty of a person can not be restrained without lawful justification. Indeed, the plaintiff need not even have been aware of the false imprisonment. In this case, the false imprisonment was both physical in a particular space and psychological, so it meets all the criteria.7 Tony vs. The Immigration Officials

Tony wanted to leave, the restaurant. Tony would likely have access to a tort against the State Immigration Department for illegal trespass on his person and false imprisonment. As seen in Williams v Milotin there is no need for intent to proceed with a tort of trespass.8 Tony, who wanted to leave, threatened an official that he would knock him over if the official did not get out of the way. The official did not budge. Tony might have caused a nuisance as he threatened the officer even though was persuaded by his wife Carmela to sit down.9

Parking and Ivan and Rosina

Ivan and Rosina stopped to embrace passionately just as they were entering the nearby car park to collect their car. With regard to the car park accident, the possible tort complaints that Ivan and Rosina might take against the parking garage would have to prove negligence on the part of the parking garage company. This would appear difficult since they were standing under a garage door. A reasonable person would most certainly be expected to avoid such an area first due to the door and secondly because it is the entrance...

Limitation of Actions Act, http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/handbook/ch18s01s05.php#
New South Wales v Lepore; Samin v Queensland; Rich v Queensland, Melbourne University Law Review, [2003] MULR 22 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MULR/2003/22.html

Robinson, Mark A. Damages in False Imprisonment Matters. 22 February 2008.

http://www.robinson.com.au/monoartpapers/monographs/

Torts - Topic3 Action on the Case of Wilful Injury, 2006-2007, http://www.studentatlaw.com/articles/14/1/Torts-Topic3-Action-on-the-Case-of-Wilful-Injury/Page1.html

Unauthorised Photographs on the Internet And Ancillary Privacy Issues. Discussion Paper Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, August 2005, 10, http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/rwpattach.nsf/VAP/(CFD7369FCAE9B8F32F341DBE097801FF)~8%2BAugInternetPhotosFinalPaperAugust05.pdf/$file/8%2BAugInternetPhotosFinalPaperAugust05.pdf.

1 New South Wales v Lepore; Samin v Queensland; Rich v Queensland, Melbourne University Law Review, [2003] MULR 22

2 Torts - Topic3 Action on the Case of Wilful Injury, 2006-2007.

3 Brisbane Authority v Taylor [1996] 70 ALJR 866 at 871-2.

4 Wright, Brian. Limitation of Actions Act,

5 Unauthorised Photographs on the Internet and Ancillary Privacy Issues. Discussion Paper

Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. August 2005, 10.

6 New South Wales v Lepore; Samin v Queensland; Rich v Queensland, Melbourne University Law Review, [2003] MULR 22

7 Robinson, Mark A. Damages in False Imprisonment Matters. 22 February 2008, 1-2.

8 New South Wales v Lepore; Samin v Queensland; Rich v Queensland, Melbourne University Law Review, [2003] MULR 22

9 Ibid.

1 0 Donoghue (or McAlister) v Stevenson, [1932] All ER Rep 1; [1932] AC 562; House of Lords.