3 cases for action for intentional infliction of (indirect) physical or mental harm
- Wilkinson v Downton
- Victorian Railways Commissioners v Coultas
- Janvier v Sweeney
What do Bridgeman and Jones say about acts of harassment
acts of harassment typically don’t amount to battery, assault, false imprisonment
which case says there is no tort of harassment
Patel v Patel- So Wilkinson rule should be used
what does Dillon LJ say
that Wilkinson + private nuisance could be used- for example in cases where the C gets pestering phone calls in their own home
What was held in Khorasandijian v Bush
any basis for an injunction to prevent D ‘harassing, pestering and communicating with the plaintiff’?
what does Gibson J say in response to Dillon LJ
there is no interest in land, so not nuisance. Injunction too broad- must be based on a tort, eg. Wilkinson v Downton, to prevent D ‘doing acts calculated to cause the plaintiff harm’
what does Conaghan say about Khorasandijan
that it is a good case offering support for harassment, it is dynamic and accessibly, especially for women. This was not the case in Wilkinson
which case shows that tort law is of limited use
Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust
Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust outcome
for an action under the rule in Wilkinson there must be a medically recognised psychiatric illness
what is the harassment act called
Protection from Harassment Act 1977
what 3 things were the primary focus of the harassment act
- primary concern: a response to stalking
- difficulties of defining the behaviour
- crime and tort of harassment
Jones v Ruth outcome
D does not have to foresee any anxiety and injury to the C, for the C to recover damages. the D has to know that what they are doing amounts to harassment.
-any interpretations in the criminal law will apply in the civil courts
2 course of conduct cases
Lau v DPP
Kelly v DPP
Kelly v DPP outcome
there was repetition by the D- so there was a claim.
-there must be repetition in the acts
King v DPP outcome
course of conduct must amount to harassment
what does Conaghan say about harassment and s3 of the harassment act
That different people view different things as harassment- some women may find things harassing, where as some men may not
Wainwright v Home Office outcome
- there was no conduct for harassment
- HoL held that there must be psychiatric injury for the rule in Wilkinson to be used
what does Hoffman say about the rule in Wilkinson
Reported by Conaghan
- that is should have ‘no leading role in the modern tort of law’ so should be allowed to ‘disappear beneath the surface of negligence law- therefore, other torts are more appropriate for dealing with situations anticipated by the Wilkinson rule
- Parliament was conscious that it might not be in the public interest to allow the law to be set in motion for one boorish incident’
OPO v MLA outcome
- The rule in Wilkinson is sufficient to provide a basis for an injunction
- publishing to book would be intentional and as they know it could cause injury- there is intention
James Rhodes v OPO and another
3 principles
- The conduct element requiring words or conduct directed at the claimant for which there is no justification or excuse,
- the mental element requiring an intention to cause at least severe mental or emotional distress
- the consequence element requiring physical harm or recognised psychiatric illness
James Rhodes v OPO and another
outcome
there cannot be an injunction- D is allowed to tell his story of abuse, there is a justification for his actions, the rule in Wilkinson could not grant an injunction
ABC v West Heath
outcome
judges said Wilkinson could be used- there was intentional infliction of harm
what is the rule in Wilkinson
it allows actions to be taken where there is an intentional infliction of indirect physical or mental harm.
what was proven in James Rhodes v OPO about the rule in Wilkinson
that the rule still serves a limited purpose
