Facts
In Bird v. Jones (1845) 7 QB 742, a section of Hammersmith Bridge, typically used as a public footway, was temporarily designated for seating to view a regatta. A temporary fence separated this area from the carriageway. The plaintiff, Bird, attempted to pass through the designated area and jumped over the fence. The defendant, Jones, stationed two policemen to prevent Bird’s progress but informed him that he could return to the carriageway and proceed to the other side of the bridge. Bird refused and remained in place for half an hour.
Issue
The key issue was whether Bird was entitled to claim damages for false imprisonment based on the obstruction of his movement.
Holding
The court ruled that a mere obstruction, leaving an individual free to either stay where they are or move in a different direction, does not amount to false imprisonment. As Judge Patterson stated, “Imprisonment is… a total restraint of the liberty of the person, for however short a time, and not a partial obstruction of his will, whatever inconvenience it may bring on him” (at 751). Therefore, Bird’s claim for false imprisonment was denied.
![Case Brief: Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728](https://superlawgh.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Carefully-drafted-case-briefs-to-make-understanding-the-law-simpler-and-more-efficient-1024x1024.jpg)
