Intentional Interferences with the Person

Question 1

Fowler v Lanning

Answer 1

For D to be liable for an intentional interference tort, C must show that there was intention to interfere with his person

Question 2

Letang v Cooper

Answer 2

It is not necessary to show actual damage, all c needs to show is intention (fault)

Question 3

Assault

Answer 3

C must show that D’s conduct created a reasonable apprehension of immediate unlawful contact

Question 4

Stephens v Myers

Answer 4

An assault can be committed even if D was not able to carry out the full action/threat (lunging to punch C case)

Question 5

R v Ireland

Answer 5

Silence can amount to assault, and assault can be committed via another medium (e.g. telephone)

Question 6

Battery

Answer 6

Battery is D’s unlawful physical contact with C

Question 7

Collins v Wilcock

Answer 7

Lord Goff explained that some forms of touching do NOT amount to battery because some physical contact is viewed as generally acceptable in the course of everyday life

Question 8

Wilson v Pringle

Answer 8

For D to commit a battery, there must be some INTENTIONAL touching or contact

Question 9

False Imprisonment

Answer 9

False imprisonment requires D directly curtailing C’s liberty without lawful excuse

Question 10

Bird v Jones

Answer 10

False imprisonment requires a complete curtailment of C’s liberty/movement - not sufficient to simply close off one direction to C e.g. (bridge case)

Question 11

Iqbal v Prison Officers Association

Answer 11

Default of action (i.e. omissions) do not give rise to successful false imprisonment claims

Question 12

Intentional Infliction of Physical/Emotional Harm

Answer 12

This relates to cases in which D indirectly causes harm to C

Question 13

Wilkinson v Downton

Answer 13

D can be liable for intentional infliction of physical/emotional harm where they wilfully calculated to cause harm to C, e.g. by telling them of a shocking accident, intending to inflict psychiatric harm upon them

Question 14

Wainwright v Home Office

Answer 14

Lord Hoffmann said that Wilkinson v Downton has “no leading role in the modern law” - so it has limited scope now, but is still good law/an intentional tort

Question 15

James Rhodes v OPO

Answer 15

Court did confirm that Wilkinson is still good law and has application. However, the claim failed because the publisher was justified in telling the story, and it was not being published in the country that C lived in.

Note that the mental element for this tort is intention to cause harm or distress - so lower threshold than intention to cause injury

Question 16

Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Answer 16

Created civil liability for harassment of another person - amended in 2005 to also create liability for stalking

Question 17

s.1 Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Answer 17

Defines harassment - it is an offence to pursue a course of conduct which D knows or ought to know is harassment of another

Question 18

s.3 Protection from Harassment Act 1997

Answer 18

Creates a civil remedy for harassment - damages may be awarded for any anxiety/loss caused by the harrassment

Question 19

Jones v Ruth

Answer 19

Physical damage can also be claimed for harassment, in addition to anxiety/distress

Question 20

Hayes v Willoughby

Answer 20

Defence for harassment if D is attempting to prevent a criminal defence being committed in the course of his conduct

Question 21

Chatterton v Gerson

Answer 21

If C is given proper advice about a medical procedure and goes ahead with it, then D cannot be liable. But note that fraud vitiates consent!

Question 22

Re B

Answer 22

Consent to an intentional tort (e.g. battery) can be implicit. The more severe the risk/invasive the procedure, the more likely explicit consent is to be required

Question 23

Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex Police

Answer 23

Test for self-defence in intentional torts is whether D’s belief that he was under threat was HONEST and REASONABLE

Question 24

Lane v Holloway

Answer 24

Response in self-defence must be proprtionate

Question 25

Mental Capacity Act 2005

Answer 25

s. 2(1) provides that a person lacks capacity if they cannot make the decision for themselves due to impairment/disturbance of the mind.
s. 3 provides that a person is unable to make a decision for themselves if they are unable to understand, retain and weigh up the relevant info

Question 26

Re F

Answer 26

Lord Goff argued that where the state of affairs is permanent or semi-permanent, there is no point in waiting to obtain the patient’s consent