LAW OF TORTS

1
LAW OF TORTS

• Peter J FrancisDefinition, aims scope of torts
• Intentional Torts

2
TEXT BOOKS

• Baker, Blay et al Torts Law in Principle LBC
  2005 4th Ed.
• Blay, Torts in a Nutshell LBC 1999
• Sappideen, Vines, Grant Watson, Torts
  Commentary Materials LBC (2006) 9th Ed.
• Balkin Davis Law of Torts (2004) 3rd Ed.
  Butterworths
• Luntz and Hambly Torts Cases and Commentary
  (2006) Revised 5th Ed. Butterworths
• Trindade and Cane The Law of Torts
• Fleming, The Law of Torts (1996)

3
LEC Torts Website

• www.usyd.edu.au/lec/subjects/torts//materials.htm
• Past exams comments
• www.library.usyd.edu.au/libraries/law/lpab.htmle
  xams

4
WHAT IS A TORT?

• A tort is a civil wrong
• That (wrong) is based a breach of a duty imposed
  by law
• Which (breach) gives rise to a (personal) civil
  right of action for for a remedy not exclusive to
  another area of law

5
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TORT AND A CRIME

• A crime is public /community wrong that gives
  rise to sanctions usually designated in a
  specified code. A tort is a civil private
  wrong.
• Action in criminal law is usually brought by the
  state or the Crown. Tort actions are usually
  brought by the victims of the tort.
• The principal objective in criminal law is
  punishment. In torts, it is compensation

6
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TORT AND A CRIME

• Differences in Procedure
• Standard of Proof
• Criminal law beyond reasonable doubt
• Torts on the balance of probabilities

7
THE AIMS OF TORT LAW

• Loss distribution/adjustment shifting losses
  from victims to perpetrators
• Compensation Through the award of (pecuniary)
  damages
• The object of compensation is to place the victim
  in the position he/she was before the tort was
  committed.
• Punishment through exemplary or punitive
  damages. This is a secondary aim.

8
INTERESTS PROTECTED IN TORT LAW

• Personal security
• Trespass
• Negligence
• Reputation
• Defamation
• Property
• Trespass
• Conversion
• Economic and financial interests

9
INTENTIONAL TORTS

INTENATIONAL TORTS
Trespass
Conversion
Detinue
10
WHAT IS TRESPASS?

• Intentional or negligent act of D which
  directly causes an injury to the P or his /her
  property without lawful justification
• The Elements of Trespass
• fault intentional or negligent act
• - injury must be direct
• injury may be to the P or to his/her property
• - No lawful justification

11
INJURY IN TRESPASS

• Injury a breach of right, not necessarily
  actual damage
• Trespass requires only proof of injury not actual
  damage

12
THE GENERAL ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS
Intentional/ negligent act
Direct interference with person or property
Absence of lawful justification



A specific form of trespass
x element

13
SPECIFIC FORMS OF TRESPASS
TRESPASS
PERSON
PROPERTY
BATTERY
ASSAULT
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
14
BATTERY

• The intentional or negligent act of D which
  directly causes a physical interference with the
  body of P without lawful justification
• The distinguishing element physical interference
  with Ps body

15
THE INTENTIONAL ACT IN BATTERY

• No liability without intention
• The intentional act basic willful act the
  consequences.

16
CAPACITY TO FORM THE INTENT

• D is deemed capable of forming intent if he/she
  understands the nature of (intended) his/her
  act
• -Infants
• Lunatics
• Morris v Marsden
• Hart v A. G. of Tasmania ( infant cutting another
  infant with razor blade)

17
THE ACT MUST CAUSE PHYSICAL INTERFERENCE

• The essence of the tort is the protection of the
  person of P. Ds act short of physical contact
  is therefore not a battery
• The least touching of another could be battery
• Cole v Turner (dicta per Holt CJ)
• The fundamental principle, plain and
  incontestable, is that every persons body is
  inviolate ( per Goff LJ, Collins v Wilcock)

18
The Nature of the Physical Interference

• Rixon v Star City Casino (D places hand on Ps
  shoulder to attract his attention no battery)
• Collins v Wilcock (Police officer holds Ds arm
  with a view to restraining her when D declines to
  answer questions and begins to walk away
  battery)
• Platt v Nutt

19
THE INJURY MUST BE CAUSED DIRECTLY

• Injury should be the immediate
• Scott v Shepherd ( Lit squib/fireworks in market
  place)
• Hutchins v Maughan (poisoned bait left for dog)
• Southport v Esso Petroleum(Spilt oil on Ps beach)

20
THE ACT MUST BE WITHOUT LAWFUL JUSTIFICATION

• Consent is Lawful justification
• Consent must be freely given by the P if P is
  able to understand the nature of the act
• Lawful justification includes the lawful act of
  law enforcement officers
• Wilson v. Marshall (D accused of assaulting
  police officer, held officers conduct not lawful)

21
TRESPASSASSAULT

• The intentional/negligent act or threat of D
  which directly places P in reasonable
  apprehension of an imminent physical interference
  with his or her person or of someone under his or
  her control

22
THE ELEMENTS OF ASSAULT

• There must be a direct threat
• Hall v Fonceca (Threat by P who shook hand in
  front of Ds face in an argument)
• In general, mere words are not actionable
• Barton v Armstrong
• In general, conditional threats are not
  actionable
• Tuberville v Savage
• Police v Greaves
• Rozsa v Samuels

23
THE ELEMENTS OF ASSAULT

• The apprehension must be reasonable the test is
  objective
• The interference must be imminent
• Rozsa v Samuels
• Police v Greaves
• Hall v Fonceca
• Zanker v Vartzokas (P jumps out of a moving van
  to escape from Ds unwanted lift)

24
THE GENERAL ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS
Intentional/ negligent act
Direct interference
Absence of lawful justification



A specific form of trespass
x element

25
SPECIFIC FORMS OF TRESPASS
TRESPASS
PERSON
PROPERTY
BATTERY
ASSAULT
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
26
FALSE IMPRISONMENT

• The intentional or negligent act of D which
  directly causes the total restraint of P and
  thereby confines him/her to a delimited area
  without lawful justification
• The essential distinctive element is the total
  restraint

27
THE ELEMENTS OF THE TORT

• It requires all the basic elements of trespass
• Intentional/negligent act
• Directness
• absence of lawful justification/consent , and
• total restraint

28
RESTRAINT IN FALSE IMPRISONMENT

• The restraint must be total
• Bird v Jones (passage over bridge)
• The Balmain New Ferry Co v Robertson
• Total restraint implies the absence of a
  reasonable means of escape
• Burton v Davies (D refuses to allow P out of car)
• Restraint may be total where D subjects P to
  his/her authority with no option to leave
• Symes v Mahon (police officer arrests P by
  mistake)
• Myer Stores v Soo

29
FORMS OF FALSE IMPRISONMENT

• See the following Cases
• Cowell v. Corrective Services Commissioner of NSW
  (1988) Aust. Torts Reporter 81-197.
• Louis v. The Commonwealth of Australia 87 FLR
  277.
• Lippl v. Haines Another (1989) Aust. Torts
  Reporter 80-302 (1989) 18 NSWLR 620.

30
VOLUNTARY CASES

• In general, there is no FI where one voluntarily
  submits to a form of restraint
• Herd v Weardale (D refuses to allow P out of mine
  shaft)
• Robinson v The Balmain New Ferry Co. (D refuses
  to allow P to leave unless P pays fare)
• Lippl v Haines
• Where there is no volition for restraint, the
  confinement may be FI (Bahner v Marwest Hotels
  Co.)

31
WORDS AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT

• In general, words can constitute FI
• see Balkin Davis pp. 55 to 56
• restraint even by mere threat of force which
  intimidates a person into compliance without any
  laying on of hands may be false imprisonment
• - Symes v Mahon

32
KNOWLEDGE IN FALSE IMPRISONMENT

• The knowledge of the P at the moment of restraint
  is not essential.
• Meering v Graham White Aviation
• Murray v Ministry of Defense

33
WHO IS LIABLE? THE AGGRIEVED CITIZEN OR THE
POLICE OFFICER?

• In each case, the issue is whether the police in
  making the arrest acted independently or as the
  agent of the citizen who promoted and caused the
  arrest
• Dickenson v Waters Ltd
• Bahner v Marwest Hotels Co

34
THE MENTALLY ILL AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT

• In Common Law, the lawfulness of an act of
  detention of a person must depend on "overriding
  necessity for the protection of himself and
  others per Harvey J in In re Hawke (1923) 40 WN
  (NSW) 58
• The situation under statute
• Watson v Marshall and Cade (1971) 124 CLR 621
• The Vic Mental Health Act 1959Any person may be
  admitted into and detained in a psychiatric
  hospital upon the production of
• (a) a request under the hand of some person in
  the prescribed form
• (b) a statement of the prescribed particulars
  and
• (c) a recommendation in the prescribed form of a
  medical practitioner based upon a personal
  examination of such person made not more than
  seven clear days before the admission of such
  person.

35
DAMAGES

• False imprisonment is actionable per se
• The failure to prove any actual financial loss
  does not mean that the plaintiff should recover
  nothing. The damages are at large. An
  interference with personal liberty even for a
  short period is not a trivial wrong. The injury
  to the plaintiff's dignity and to his feelings
  can be taken into account in assessing damages
  (Watson v Marshall and Cade )

36
OTHER FORMS OF TRESPASS
TRESPASS
PERSON
PROPERTY
BATTERY
ASSAULT
FALSE IMPRISONMENT
37
TRESPASS TO PROPERTY
TRESPASS TO PROPERTY
LAND
GOODS/CHATTELS
38
TRESPASS TO LAND

• The intentional or negligent act of D which
  directly interferes with the plaintiffs
  exclusive possession of land

39
THE NATURE OF THE TORT

• Land includes the actual soil/dirt, the
  structures/plants on it and the airspace above it
• Cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et
  inferos
• Bernstein of Leigh v Skyways General Ltd
• Kelson v Imperial Tobacco

40
STATUTORY EASEMENTS

• Conveyancing Act 1919 s 88K (NSW)
• 1. The Court may make an order imposing an
  easement over land if the easement is reasonably
  necessary for the effective use or development of
  other land that will have the benefit of the
  easement.
• 2. Such an order may be made only if the Court is
  satisfied that
• (a) use of the land having the benefit of the
  easement will not be inconsistent with the public
  interest, and
• (b) the owner of the land to be burdened by the
  easement and each other person having an estate
  or interest in that land can be adequately
  compensated for any loss or other disadvantage
  that will arise from imposition of the easement
• all reasonable attempts have been made by the
  applicant for the order to obtain the easement or
  an easement having the same effect but have been
  unsuccessful

41
RESTRICTIONS ON STATUTORY EASEMENTS

• Property rights are valuable rights and the
  court should not lightly interfere with such
  property rights the section does not exist
  for people build right up to the boundary of
  their property or build without adequate access
  and then expect others to make their land
  available for access per Young J Hanny v Lewis
  (1999) NSW Conv. R 55-879 at 56-875
• Developers have a responsibility to act
  reasonably as do the proprietors of adjoining
  land and the developers should not just proceed
  as if they would automatically get what they seek
  without negotiations (per Windeyer J Goodwin v
  Yee Holdings Pty Ltd (1997) 8 BPR)

42
The Issue of Compensation

• 88K (2) Such an order may be made only if the
  Court is satisfied that the owner of the land to
  be burdened by the easement and each other person
  having an estate or interest in that land can be
  adequately compensated for any loss or other
  disadvantage that will arise from imposition of
  the easement
• Adequate compensation (Wengarin Pty Ltd v Byron
  Shire Council 1999 NSWSC 485)
• the diminished market value of the servient land
• associated costs that would be caused to the
  owner
• loss of amenities such as peace and quite
• where assessment proves difficult, the court may
  assess compensation on a percentage of the
  profits that would be made from the use of the
  easement

43
Neighbouring land Access and Utility Service
Orders

• The Access to Neighbouring Land Act 2000 ss11
  and 13
• (1) A Local Court may make a neighbouring land
  access /utility service access order if it is
  satisfied that access to land is required for the
  purpose of carrying out work on or in connection
  with a utility service situated on the land and
  it is satisfied that it is appropriate to make
  the order in the circumstances of the case
• (2) The Court must not make a utility service
  access order unless it is satisfied
• (a) that the applicant has made a reasonable
  effort to reach agreement with every person whose
  consent to access is required as to the access
  and carrying out of the work, and
• (b) if the requirement to give notice has not
  been waived, that the applicant has given notice
  of the application in accordance with the Act

44
The Nature of Ds Act A General Note

• ...Every invasion of private property, be it
  ever so minute, is a trespass. No man can set
  his foot upon my ground without my license, but
  he is liable to an action, though the damage be
  nothing.... If he admits the fact, he is bound to
  show by way of justification, that some positive
  law has empowered or excused him ( Entick v
  Carrington (1765) 16 St Tr 1029, 1066)

45
THE NATURE OF DS ACT

• The act must constitute some physical
  interference which disturbs Ps exclusive
  possession of the land
• Victoria Racing Co. v Taylor
• Barthust City Council v Saban
• Lincoln Hunt v Willesse

46
THE NATURE OF THE PLAINTIFFS INTEREST IN THE LAND

• P must have exclusive possession of the land at
  the time of the interference exclusion of all
  others

47
THE NATURE OF EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION

• Exclusive possession is distinct from ownership.
  
• Ownership refers to title in the land.
  Exclusive possession refers to physical holding
  of the land
• Possession may be immediate or constructive
• The nature of possession depends on the material
  possessed

48
EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION CO-OWNERS

• In general, a co-owner cannot be liable in
  trespass in respect of the land he/she owns but
  this is debatable where the trespassing
  co-owner is not in possession. (Greig v Greig)
• A co-possessor can maintain an action against a
  trespasser (Coles Smith v Smith and Ors)

49
THE POSITION OF LICENSEES

• A licensee is one who has the permission of P to
  enter or use land (belonging to P)
• A licensee is a party not in possession, and
  can therefore not sue in trespass
• A licensee for value however may be entitled to
  sue(E.R. Investments v Hugh)

50
THE TRESPASSORY ACT

• Preventing Ps access Waters v Maynard)
• The continuation of the initial trespassory act
  is a continuing trespass
• Where D enters land for purposes different from
  that for which P gave a license, Ds conduct may
  constitute trespass ab initio (Barker v R)

51
THE POSITION OF POLICE OFFICERS

• Unless authorized by law, police officers have
  no special right of entry into any premises
  without consent of P ( Halliday v Neville)
• A police officer charged with the duty of
  serving a summons must obtain the consent of the
  party in possession (Plenty v. Dillion )

52
Police Officers The Common Law Position

• The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance
  to all forces of the Crown. It may be frail- its
  roof may shake- the wind may blow through it- the
  rain may enter- but the King of England cannot
  enter- all his force dares not cross the
  threshold of the ruined tenement. So be it-
  unless he has justification by law. Southam v
  Smout 1964 1QB 308, 320.

53
REMEDIES

• Ejectment
• Recovery of Possession
• Award of damages
• Injunction
• Parramatta CC v Lutz
• Campbelltown CC v Mackay
• XL Petroleum (NSW) v Caltex Oil

54
TRESPASS TO PROPERTY
TRESPASS TO PROPERTY
LAND
GOODS/CHATTELS
55
TRESPASS TO GOODS/CHATTEL

• The intentional/negligent act of D which
  directly interferes with the plaintiffs
  possession of a chattel without lawful
  justification
• The P must have actual or constructive
  possession at the time of interference.

56
DAMAGES

• It may not be actionable per se (Everitt v
  Martin)

57
CONVERSION

• The act of D in relation to anothers chattel
  which constitutes an unjustifiable denial of
  his/her title

58
CONVERSION Who Can Sue?

• Owners
• Those in possession or entitled to immediate
  possession
• Bailees/ Bailors
• Mortgagors/Mortgagees(Citicorp Australia v
  B.S. Stillwell)
• Finders (Parker v British Airways Armory v
  Delmirie)

59
ACTS OF CONVERSION

• Mere asportation is no conversion
• Fouldes v Willoughby
• The Ds conduct must constitute an unjustifiable
  denial of Ps rights to the property
• Howard E Perry v British Railways Board 1980
• Finders of lost property
• Parker v British Airways 1982
• The position of the auctioneer
• Willis v British Car Auctions 1978
• Destruction of the chattel is conversion
• Atkinson v Richardson
• Taking possession
• Withholding possession
• Clayton v Le Roy 1911

60
ACTS OF CONVERSION

• Misdelivery ( Ashby v Tolhurst (1937 2KB)
  Sydney City Council v West)
• Unauthorized dispositions in any manner that
  interferes with Ps title constitutes conversion
  ( Penfolds Wines v Elliott)

61
DETINUE

• Detinue The wrongful refusal to tender goods
  upon demand by P who is entitled to possession
  It requires a demand coupled with subsequent
  refusal (General and Finance Facilities v Cooks
  Cars (Romford)

62
DAMAGES IN CONVERSION AND DETINUE

• In conversion, damages usually take the form of
  pecuniary compensation
• In detinue, the court may in appropriate
  circumstances order the return of the chattel
• Damages in conversion are calculated as at the
  time of conversion in detinue it is as at the
  time of judgment
• The Medianal
• Butler v The Egg and Pulp Marketing Board
• The Winkfield
• General and Finance Facilities v Cooks Cars
  (Romford)

63
THE LAW OF TORTS

• Action on the Case for Indirect Injuries

64
INDIRECT INTENTIONAL INJURIES

• ACTION ON THE CASE FOR PHYSICAL INJURIES OR
  NERVOUS SHOCK
• ACTION ON THE CASE REFERS TO ACTIONS BASED ON
  INJURIES THAT ARE CAUSED INDIRECTLY OR
  CONSEQUENTIALLY

65
INDIRECT INTENTIONAL INJURIES CASE LAW

• Bird v Holbrook (trap set in garden)
• D is liable in an action on the case for damages
  for intentional acts which are meant to cause
  damage to P and which in fact cause damage (to P)

66
THE INTENTIONAL ACT

• The intentional may be deliberate and
  preconceived(Bird v Holbrook )
• It may also be inferred or implied the test for
  the inference is objective
• Wilkinson v Downton 1897
• Janvier v Sweeney 1919

67
Action on the Case for Indirect Intentional Harm
Elements

• D is liable in an action on the case for damages
  for intentional acts which are meant to cause
  damage to P and which in fact cause damage to P
• The elements of this tort
• The act must be intentional
• It must be one calculated to cause harm/damage
• It must in fact cause harm/actual damage
• Where D intends no harm from his act but the harm
  caused is one that is reasonably foreseeable, Ds
  intention to cause the resulting harm can be
  imputed/implied

68
THE SCOPE OF THE RULE

• The rule does not cover pure mental stress or
  mere fright
• The act must be reasonably capable of causing
  mental distress to a normal person
• Bunyan v Jordan (1937)
• Stevenson v Basham 1922

69
ONUS OF PROOF

• In Common Law, he who asserts proves
• Traditionally, in trespass D was required to
  disprove fault once P proved injury. Depending on
  whether the injury occurred on or off the highway
  ( McHale v Watson Venning v Chin)
• The current Australian position is contentious
  but seems to support the view that in off
  highway cases D is required to prove all the
  elements of the tort once P proves injury
• Hackshaw v Shaw
• Platt v Nutt
• See Blay Onus of Proof of Consent in an Action
  for Trespass to the Person Vol. 61 ALJ (1987)
  25
• But see McHugh J in See Secretary DHCS v JWB and
  SMB (Marions Case) 1992 175 CLR 218

70
THE LAW OF TORTS

• Defences to Intentional Torts

71
INTRODUCTION The Concept of Defence

• Broader Concept The content of the Statement of
  Defence- The response to the Ps Statement of
  Claim-The basis for non-liability
• Statement of Defence may contain
• Denial
• Objection to a point of law
• Confession and avoidance

72
MISTAKE

• An intentional conduct done under a
  misapprehension
• Mistake is thus not the same as inevitable
  accident
• Mistake is generally not a defence in tort law (
  Rendell v Associated Finance Ltd, Symes v Mahon)

73
CONSENT

• In a strict sense, consent is not a defence as
  such because in trespass, the absence of consent
  is an element of the tort
• See Blay Onus of Proof of Consent in an Action
  for Trespass to the Person Vol. 61 ALJ (1987)
  25
• But McHugh J in See Secretary DHCS v JWB and SMB
  (Marions Case) 1992 175 CLR 218

74
VALID CONSENT

• To be valid, consent must be informed and
  procured without fraud or coercion ( R v
  Williams)
• To invalidate consent, fraud must relate
  directly to the agreement itself, and not to an
  incidental issue (Papadimitropoulos v R (1957)
  98 CLR 249)

75
CONSENT IN SPORTS

• In contact sports, consent is not necessarily a
  defence to foul play (McNamara v Duncan Hilton v
  Wallace)
• To succeed in an action for trespass in contact
  sports however, the P must of course prove the
  relevant elements of the tort.
• Giumelli v Johnston

76
THE BURDEN OF PROOF

• Since the absence of consent is a definitional
  element in trespass, it is for the P to prove
  absence of consent and not for the D to prove
  consent

77
STATUTORY PROVISIONS ON CONSENT

• Minors (Property and Contracts) Act 1970 (NSW)
  ss 14, 49
• Children Young Persons (Care and Protection
  Act) 1998 (NSW) ss 174, 175

78
SELF DEFENCE, DEFENCE OF OTHERS

• A P who is attacked or threatened with an
  attack, is allowed to use reasonable force to
  defend him/herself
• In each case, the force used must be
  proportional to the threat it must not be
  excessive. (Fontin v Katapodis)
• D may also use reasonable force to defend a
  third party where he/she reasonably believes that
  the party is being attacked or being threatened

79
THE DEFENCE OF PROPERTY

• D may use reasonable force to defend his/her
  property if he/she reasonably believes that the
  property is under attack or threatened
• What is reasonable force will depend on the
  facts of each case, but it is debatable whether
  reasonable force includes deadly force

80
PROVOCATION

• Provocation is not a defence in tort law.
• It can only be used to avoid the award of
  exemplary damages Fontin v Katapodis Downham v
  Bellette (1986) Aust Torts Reports 80-038

81
The Case for Allowing the Defence of Provocation

• The relationship between provocation and
  contributory negligence
• The implication of counterclaims
• Note possible qualifications Fontin v Katapodis
  to
• Lane v Holloway
• Murphy v Culhane
• See Blay Provocation in Tort Liability A
  Time for Reassessment,QUT Law Journal, Vol. 4
  (1988) pp. 151-159.

82
NECESSITY

• The defence is allowed where an act which is
  otherwise a tort is done to save life or
  property urgent situations of imminent peril

83
Urgent Situations of Imminent Peril

• The situation must pose a threat to life or
  property to warrant the act Southwark London B.
  Council v Williams
• The defence is available in very strict
  circumstances R v Dudley and Stephens
• Ds act must be reasonably necessary and not
  just convenient Murray v McMurchy
• In re F
• Cope v Sharp

84
INSANITY

• Insanity is not a defence as such to an
  intentional tort.
• What is essential is whether D by reason of
  insanity was capable of forming the intent to
  commit the tort. (White v Pile Morris v Marsden)

85
INFANTS

• Minority is not a defence as such in torts.
• What is essential is whether the D understood the
  nature of his/her conduct (Smith v Leurs Hart v
  AG of Tasmania)

86
DISCIPLINE

• PARENTS
• A parent may use reasonable and moderate force
  to discipline a child. What is reasonable will
  depend on the age, mentality, and physique of the
  child and on the means and instrument used. (R v
  Terry)

87
ILLEGALITYEx turpi causa non oritur actio

• Persons who join in committing an illegal act
  have no legal rights inter se in relation to
  torts arising directly from that act.
• Hegarty v Shine
• Smith v Jenkins
• Jackson v Harrison
• Gala v Preston

88
TRESPASS CLA 2002

• s.3B(1)(a) Civil Liability Act (CLA) i.e. CLA
  does not apply to intentional torts, except
  Part 7 of the Act.
• s.52 (2) CLA subjective/objective test i.e.
  subjective ("believes" "perceives")/
  objective ("reasonable response") test.
• s.53(1)(a) (b) CLA i.e. and two limb test
  "exceptional" and "harsh and unjust are not
  defined in the Act so s.34 of the Interpretation
  Act 1987.
• s.54(1) (2) CLA i.e. "Serious offence" and
  "offence" are criminal terms so reference should
  be made to the criminal law to confirm whether
  P's actions are covered by the provisions.