⇒ An assault is an intentional act which directly causes the claimant to reasonably apprehend the application of unlawful force.

• An 'intentional act' means it must be voluntary
• An 'act' means a 'positive act' i.e. he/she actually did something (Innes v Wylie)
• The act must be 'directly' cause the claimant to apprehend unlawful force i.e. there must be no intervening act

⇒ Unless a defence applies, the tort is actionable

⇒ The apprehension of the claimant could be due to the defendant's actions and words (see, for example, Read v Coker [1853])

⇒ The apprehension of the claimant could be due to the defendant's silence (see, for example, R v Ireland [1998])

⇒ However, words that could cause the claimant to apprehend unlawful force may be cancelled out by words (see, for example, Tuberville v Savage [1669])

⇒ In other words, there must be a real prospect of the battery being carried out

⇒ ... Even if the battery is never actually carried out (see, for example, Stephens v Myers (1830). Also, see the case of Read v Coker [1853])

⇒ The test carried out for what constitutes reasonable apprehension of an imminent battery is objective not subjective i.e. the question the court asks is whether or not the 'reasonable man' would have apprehended an imminent battery, not the claimant himself