There is no reference to Trespass to Chattels in the document yet as I have not yet written that part, but you can find info here:
http://search.opsi.gov.uk/search?q=c...phore&oe=UTF-8
---------- Post added at 07:40 ---------- Previous post was at 07:36 ----------
My basic argument of trespass to chattels will be based around the javascript injection in the trials. It can (and has been argued in the past) be deemed that running software on a computer without the consent of the owner is trespass to chattels under Torts Act (Interference with Goods).
---------- Post added at 08:08 ---------- Previous post was at 07:40 ----------
Trespass to Chattels is useful because under the UK version of the Computer Misuse Act it is very difficult to "prove" intent. However, because Interference with Goods is covered under tort law there is no requirement to show intent. The mere fact that they interfered with your private property without your consent should be a strong enough argument.
Obviously by inserting javascript (which is a program albeit a small program) they have forced your computer to run a 3rd party program without your permission and thus have interfered. Plaintiffs can seek remunerative relief for any damages incurred as a result of the trespass. Damages are not limited to the literalsense of damaging your goods, damages include the cost of any time you had to spend resolving the issue, psychological damages (stress etc.) and anything else which happened as a direct result of the trespass.
At least one victim of the trials is reported to have bought a new computer to try and fix the problem, this would be an applicable damage too.