Intentional Infliction of Emotional Harm

Question 1

What is the intentional infliction of emotional harm

Answer 1

Also called Wilkinson v Downton

This is when someone acts with the intention to cause emotional harm

Question 2

Wilkinson v Downton 1897 Queens Bench UK 👨🏽‍🦽

Answer 2

Facts: Woman is pranked and told her husband had broken both her legs. Woman suffered emotional/psychiatric harm/breakdown

• The intentional infliction of emotional harm was ADOPTED in NZ
• Intention can be imputed from the facts
• Unnecessary to intend the specific degree of harm to be caused
• It is not actionable per say - unless there is evidence of harm (this is different from assault, battery and false imprisonment)
• Result must be recognised mental illness

Question 3

O (A Child) v Rhodes 2015 UK 📖

Answer 3

Facts: Father had suffered abuse and wrote about it in the book to help others. The mother of his child argued on the basis of Wilkinson v Downton that the publication of the book would cause psychiatric harm to their child/son

• The act must have no lawful justification or reasonable excuse
• There must be actual intention to cause severe mental or emotional distress
• Recklessness is insufficient
• Intention can be imputed from the facts, but not as a matter of law
• The act must RESULT in a physical injury or recognisable psychiatric injury
  Obiter – ‘extreme, flagrant or outrageous’ action should be what causes the injury (limiting factor)