Held: It was held in this case that receiving a phone call and then nobody talking can be scary and can lead you to believe an imminent battery is coming your way. Lord Hope was claiming in the case that a climate of fear was being created by a silent phone call. However, it is difficult to be convinced that this is actually an assault.

Facts: The plaintiff (i.e. the claimant) was in the defendant's shop and the defendant said that he wanted the plaintiff to leave, but the plaintiff refused. So the defendant and others in the shop surrounded the plaintiff, rolled up their sleeves, and said if he doesn't leave they will break his neck.

Held: The court held that this constituted an assault by their actions and words → the defendant reasonably thought something nasty would happen to him if he didn't leave the shop.

⇒ Jervis CJ stated: ‘If anything short of actual striking will in law constitute an assault, the facts here clearly showed that D was guilty of an assault. There was a threat of violence exhibiting an intention to assault, and a present ability to carry the threat into execution’.

Facts: At a parish meeting they voted for a person to leave. He said to them that he would rather chuck the chairman out of his char than leave and advanced upon him. However, he was stopped from chucking him out of his chair by the church warden.

Held: This was held to constitute an assault - it does not matter that he did not actually chuck the chairman out of his chair

Facts: A man put his hand on his sword (which is an aggressive act) and said to another man, 'if it were not assize time he would not take that language from him'. However, as it was assize time (i.e. the judges were in town) that cancelled out his threat, so the claimant could not reasonably apprehend force. The case also shows that there must actually be a threat and not just a conditional threat