harassment 4

Question 1

3 cases for action for intentional infliction of (indirect) physical or mental harm

Answer 1

• Wilkinson v Downton
• Victorian Railways Commissioners v Coultas
• Janvier v Sweeney

Question 2

What do Bridgeman and Jones say about acts of harassment

Answer 2

acts of harassment typically don’t amount to battery, assault, false imprisonment

Question 3

which case says there is no tort of harassment

Answer 3

Patel v Patel- So Wilkinson rule should be used

Question 4

what does Dillon LJ say

Answer 4

that Wilkinson + private nuisance could be used- for example in cases where the C gets pestering phone calls in their own home

Question 5

What was held in Khorasandijian v Bush

Answer 5

any basis for an injunction to prevent D ‘harassing, pestering and communicating with the plaintiff’?

Question 6

what does Gibson J say in response to Dillon LJ

Answer 6

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’

Question 7

what does Conaghan say about Khorasandijan

Answer 7

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

Question 8

which case shows that tort law is of limited use

Answer 8

Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust

Question 9

Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust outcome

Answer 9

for an action under the rule in Wilkinson there must be a medically recognised psychiatric illness

Question 10

what is the harassment act called

Answer 10

Protection from Harassment Act 1977

Question 11

what 3 things were the primary focus of the harassment act

Answer 11

• primary concern: a response to stalking
• difficulties of defining the behaviour
• crime and tort of harassment

Question 12

Jones v Ruth outcome

Answer 12

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

Question 13

2 course of conduct cases

Answer 13

Lau v DPP

Kelly v DPP

Question 14

Kelly v DPP outcome

Answer 14

there was repetition by the D- so there was a claim.

-there must be repetition in the acts

Question 15

King v DPP outcome

Answer 15

course of conduct must amount to harassment

Question 16

what does Conaghan say about harassment and s3 of the harassment act

Answer 16

That different people view different things as harassment- some women may find things harassing, where as some men may not

Question 17

Wainwright v Home Office outcome

Answer 17

• there was no conduct for harassment

- HoL held that there must be psychiatric injury for the rule in Wilkinson to be used

Question 18

what does Hoffman say about the rule in Wilkinson

Reported by Conaghan

Answer 18

• 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’

Question 19

OPO v MLA outcome

Answer 19

• 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

Question 20

James Rhodes v OPO and another

3 principles

Answer 20

1. The conduct element requiring words or conduct directed at the claimant for which there is no justification or excuse,
2. the mental element requiring an intention to cause at least severe mental or emotional distress
3. the consequence element requiring physical harm or recognised psychiatric illness

Question 21

James Rhodes v OPO and another

outcome

Answer 21

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

Question 22

ABC v West Heath

outcome

Answer 22

judges said Wilkinson could be used- there was intentional infliction of harm

Question 23

what is the rule in Wilkinson

Answer 23

it allows actions to be taken where there is an intentional infliction of indirect physical or mental harm.

Question 24

what was proven in James Rhodes v OPO about the rule in Wilkinson

Answer 24

that the rule still serves a limited purpose

Question 25

what does Murphy say about the Wilkinson rule

Answer 25

that the rule has ‘failed almost entirely to become a “utilised” tort … despite its … wide application’. therefore, the rule has limited use despite its broad scope

Question 26

if the Wilkinson rule is not used, what claim can be raised instead, only in some circumstances

Answer 26

a negligence claim