Wilful infringement of the right to personal safety Flashcards
what is wilful infringement to the right and to personal safety
an act calculated to cause physical harm to the P, that is to say infringe her legal right to personal safety
What is it about
the intentional infliction of indirect harm
First case of wilful infringement
wilkinson v downton
What happened in wilkinson v downton
The D falsely told the P that her husband had been involved in an accident in which he had been seriously injured. The D later claimed that it had been a joke, but the shock suffered by the P as a result lead her to suffer weeks of illness. She sued the D for damages.
What was decided in Wilkinson v Downton
that where D has wilfully undertaken an act calculated to cause physical harm liability would be found
Next case
Janvier v Sweeney
Case facts of Javier v Sweeney
A private detective had pretended to be a police officer, and, in order to obtain access to her employer’s correspondence, had threatened the P that she was in danger of arrest for association with a German spy. The P suffered psychiatric illness as a result, and was allowed to recover damages under the rule in Wilkinson.
Where has the rule been criticised
Wainwright v Home Office- The rule should ‘disappear beneath the surface of the law of negligence.’
Case which sets out test for wilful infringement
O’Rhodes
Case facts of O’Rhodes
O is the son of Rhodes. Rhodes is a famous peformng artist who purposes to publish a book based on his experiences in childhood, including experiences of sexual abuse. There is evidence that O will suffer from physictraic harm if he finds out about his father’s childhood expeirecnes, and that O searches the internet for information about his farther which will lead to the information being relealed. O’s mother, on behalf of O, brings a claim to prevent publication of the book.
What was decided on O’Rhodes
The C succeeds in obtaining an injunction in the CoA under the rule in Wilkinson v Dowton ; loses in negligence and misuse of private information.
On appeal the Supreme Court overturned the injunction and set out the necessary elements of the tort. They held it was not tortious to publish truthful statements even if they may be distressing to certain individuals.
What are the necessary elements set out in O’Rhodes
1) conduct: words or conduct directed towards D for which there is no justification or reasonable excuse
2) Mental element: intention to cause physical or severe mental or emotional distress
3) consequence element: C must suffer from physical harm or recognised injury as a result
case post O’Rhodes
ABC C West Health: grooming can amount to a wilful infringement of he right to personal safety
