traspass to the person - harassment and intentional infliction of indirect harm Flashcards
which case gives the rule for action for intentional infliction of (indirect) physical or mental harm?
Wilkinson v Downton (1897)
what happened in Wilkinson (1897)?
- def play joke tell woman husband injured
- suffer violent shock to nervous system (no psych harm in negligence then)
- did not fit into trespass but court said there was infringement of right to personal safety which was enough harm to bring action
who said acts of harassment don’t typically amount to battery, assault or false imprisonment?
- Bridgeman (1994)
what was the case where the judiciary showed creativity since there wasn’t action for harassment if the claimant didn’t have a proprietary interest in the home?
Bush 1993
what happened in Bush 1993?
- man threaten woman with phone calls and turn up at her house
- she had no interest in the house so can’t be nuisance
- Dillon LJ said Wilkinson + private nuisance could be used
what did Conaghan 1993 say about the bush 1993 case?
- creative application of old authoritory
- offers lotagory approach to sufferers of general and sexual harassment
- help with common law that was insensitive to wrongs suffered by women
which case showed Wilkinson was still of limited use in psych injury cases?
Wong (2003)
what happened in the Wong (2003) case?
- bullying at work so cant use protection from harassment act
- did not suffer med recognised illness 0 court said it had to be med recognised
- little use for Wilkinson if you need med recognised when we’ve got claims in negligence and protection from harassment act 1997
what was the purpose of the protection from harassment act 1997?
- respond to stalking
- difficult to define behaviour
- crime and tort of harassment
what does s1 prohibition of harassment say?
- must not pursue conduct that amounts to harassment which he ought to know amounts to harassment
what does s1(a) of the harassment act (inserted in 2005) say?
- not harass 2 or more people
- make them not do something they’re entitled to do
- make them do something they’re not under any obligation to do
what does s7 of the 1997 act say about the course of conduct?
- conduct on at least 2 occasions in relation to that person (single person)
- conduct on at least one occasion in relation to each person (two or more people)
- conduct includes speech
what does s7 of the 1997 act say about interpretation of harassment?
- include alarming the person or causing them distress
what does s3 of the 1997 act say about civil remedies?
- subject to the claim from the victim
- damages may be awarded for any anxiety or financial loss
the case that shows belief in reasonableness is a defense to harassment act?
- Thomas (2012)
which case said any interpretation of harassment in crim court will apply in civil court and vice versa?
jones (2011)
what happened in the case of Lau (2000)?
- Def slapped c on one occasion then months later threatened c new boyfriend
- Would 2 incidents amount to course of conduct for purposes of harassment
- Court said no incidents are too far apart and too different to work – more different and more time means less likely to amount to harassment
what happened in Kelly (2003)?
- Def made 3 abusive phone calls recorded by c’s answer phone
- C listened to all 3 messages at one
- Did it amount to 3 occasions or just 1
- Court said each phone call was separate incident, as the def did 3 separate conducts
who said problem with harassment is it assumes degree of census - different people constitute harassment differently?
Conaghan (1999)
which case said Wilkinson rule should have no leading role in the modern law of tort (mainly due to the requirement for recognized psych injury)?
Wainwright v Home Office (2004)
who wrote that we don’t need WIlksinson anymore and it’s not in the public interest to use it for cases of infrequent incidences?
Morgan (2004)
does not agree with any current method either tho
what happened in Wainwright 2004?
- woman and son strip search - not follow stat rules
- only 1 incident amount to battery
- very distressing but no psych injury
- couldn’t use wilkinson as no ed recognised, Hoffman said rule has no use
which case went to SC asking if Wilkinson could be used to stop publication of book that would be very damaging to boy with learning disabilities after COA said it could be used?
Rhodes v OPO 2015
what did Lord say in OPO 2015 case?
- for conduct element added that there must be no justification or excuse for it to work
- intention to cause severe distress required
- consequence element of physical or recognised psych harm required
(said writer and publisher had justification so could grant injunction with Wilkinson)
which case said wilkinson could be used for case where def (teacher) manipulated student for pictures and kissing causing foreseeable psych injury and self harm?
(suggests Wilkinson could be used for modern cases with no physical contact but done over internet)
ABC (2015)
