## Facts

- M. Dumont was in possession of land in Victoria.
- Thomas Miller entered onto Dumont’s land with a pack of beagles while hunting (described in later summaries as chasing a hare).
- The entry was intentional in the sense that Miller deliberately went onto the land; it was not a mere accident or involuntary movement.
- Dumont did not consent to Miller’s entry.
- Dumont did not prove (and did not rely on) any physical damage to the land; the complaint was the interference with Dumont’s right to exclusive possession.
- Dumont sued Miller in trespass to land.
- At trial, a verdict was returned for Miller.
- Dumont then sought a directed verdict (or equivalent relief setting aside the defense verdict) on the basis that trespass to land does not require proof of actual damage.

## Issues

1. Whether a deliberate, unauthorized entry onto another’s land constitutes trespass even if no physical damage is proved.
2. Whether a plaintiff in possession of land may recover damages (at least nominal) for trespass to land without proving actual loss.
3. Whether liability in trespass depends on an intention to trespass (or to cause harm) or only on an intention to perform the act that results in entry.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Victoria held that Miller’s unauthorized entry onto Dumont’s land was a trespass notwithstanding the absence of proven physical damage.
- The court granted Dumont’s application for a directed verdict or comparable order, displacing the initial verdict for Miller.
- Dumont was entitled to damages for the trespass; given the lack of proven loss, the damages were at least nominal to mark the infringement of Dumont’s possessory right.

## Legal Principles

- Trespass to land consists of a direct, physical intrusion onto land in the possession of another without lawful justification.
- Trespass to land is actionable per se: the plaintiff need not prove physical damage or measurable loss to establish liability.
- The tort protects exclusive possession; a person in possession may sue even if no harm to the land is shown.
- For intention, it is enough that the defendant intended the act that resulted in entry; the defendant need not intend to cause damage or even know that the entry is wrongful.
- Where no actual damage is proved, the court may award nominal damages to vindicate the right to exclusive possession.

## Conclusion

Dumont v. Miller holds that an intentional, unauthorized entry onto land in another’s possession—such as entering with hunting dogs to chase game—amounts to trespass even when no physical damage is proved, and the plaintiff may recover damages (at least nominal) to reflect the violation of the right to exclusive possession.


Dumont v. Miller, [1873] 4 AJR 152