Harassment and W v D

Question 1

How is the rule in Wilkinson v Downton different from trespass torts?

Answer 1

For indirect harm.

Whilst trespass torts are actionable per se (without proof of loss), for W v D there must be some harm as a result (physical or mental)

Also differs from negligence as not about unreasonableness but intention.

Question 2

Wilkinson v Downton (1897)

Answer 2

Pranked that husband was hurt

Held: D wilfully did an act that was calculated to cause harm and infringe her personal safety.

Thus creating an action for ‘intentional infliction of indirect physical or mental harm’.

Question 3

Janvier v Sweeney

Answer 3

Detective. Tells C suspected of helping Germans.

Followed W v D rule holding that D did an intentional act that was calculated to cause harm.

Question 4

Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust (2003)

Answer 4

For an action under W v D, the psychiatric harm must be a medically recognised condition.

Question 5

Harassment laws

Answer 5

Protection from Harassment Act 1997:
Introduces a crime and a tort of harassment.

Reasonable person test

Must occur on 2 or more occasions

Question 6

Defences to harassment

Answer 6

Section 3 PHA 1997 justifies harassment if:

• it was pursued for the purpose of preventing crime
• pursued under any enactment
• that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable

Jones v Ruth: harm does not have to be reasonably foreseeable. Only relevant whether D knew (or ought to know) it was harassment

Question 7

Conditions for harassment

Answer 7

Lau v DPP: longer in time and further apart, the less likely

Kelly v DPP: 3 calls in 5 minutes did satisfy PHA

Question 8

Role of W v D in modern law?

Answer 8

Wainwright v Home Office: it should play no leading role in the modern law of tort
- W v D would be cause for action after one incident, PHA required 2 for a reason.

Jonathan Morgan: Wainwright failed W v D as distress rather than medical condition… Morgan thinks mere distress is enough

Question 9

O v A (CA and SC)

Answer 9

CA found claim for W v D in that if the book was published, and psychiatric harm was caused, there would be grounds for injunction.

SC overruled on this matter on basis of Art 10 and the lack of intention to cause harm.

Question 10

A new lease of life for W v D?

Answer 10

ABC v West Heath and William Whillock (2015)

Awarded £25,000 for sexting and W v D claim

It is only one case and only High Court