WILKINSON V DOWNTON

Question 1

Wilkinson v Downton [1897]

Answer 1

Own independent tort - INTENTIONAL BUT INDIRECT INFLICTION OF HARM.

P - landlady of pub.
D - who P knows - comes into pub and as a prank, tells her that husband who went to the races was very seriously injured - 2 broken legs - and that she must go to hospital straight away.
She suffered severe nervous shock - caused illness for some weeks.
Not possible to claim in negligence yet for PPH.
___
ALLOWED
___
HELD; IF YOU DO A WILFUL ACT CALCULATED TO BRING ABOUT SOME FORM OF PHYSICAL HARM, AND INFRINGE SOMEONE’S RIGHT TO PERSONAL SAFETY, AND THEN IT DOES CAUSE PHYSICAL HARM - FOUNDS A GOOD CAUSE OF ACTION.
___
Case appeared to lay down 2 requirements:
- An act causing harm
- Intention on the part of the defendant.

Question 2

Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust [2003]

Answer 2

Workplace bullying campaign against new employee
Trivial but malicious.
HELD; NO CAUSE OF ACTION UNDER WILKINSON V DOWNTON UNLESS CLAIMANT COULD SHOW THAT HE/SHE SUFFERED MORE THAN MERE DISTRESS.
PHYSICAL HARM OR RECOGNISED PSYCHIATRIC ILLNESS.
Degree of harm must have been sufficiently likely to result - slightly less than deliberate action - ‘IMPUTED INTENTION’.
- Where although not deliberate, the harmful consequence is so likely to happen as a result of D’s actions that the court will impute intention to D.

Question 3

Wainwright v Home Office [2003]

Answer 3

Mother and son visiting prison - over-intrusive search.
Son - PTSD
Liability for battery.
Mother - no PTSD but ‘very distressing event’.
DIDN’T RULE CONCLUSIVELY, BUT SAID THAT IS POSSIBLE TO CLAIM UNDER W v D FOR MERE DISTRESS - undermines Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust
Added that imputed intention won’t be enough when mere distress is caused.
Mother’s claim failed - insufficient intention.
UNCLEAR

Question 4

C v D [2006]

Answer 4

Decision of lower court - little authoritative value
___

Sexual abuse by headmaster case.
1 incident had caused C distress.
Other incident caused C recognised psychiatric harm.
Only allowed to claim for 2nd incident.
Shows lower courts not interpreting judgement in Wainwright as authoritative - seem to be reasserting Wong.

Question 5

O v A [2015]

Answer 5

CONFIRMED THAT WILKINSON V DOWNTON IS STILL RELEVANT.
Mother seeking injunction against publication of ex-husband’s book, detailing graphically abuse he suffered as a child, as it would cause severe emotional harm to their severely autistic son.

UKSC:
Overruled C of A - had injunction set aside.
Potential harm weighed against free speech.
Defined in clear terms the requirements of the tort.

(1) CONDUCT ELEMENT
Must be conduct in the form of words or actions which is directed towards the claimant and for which there is no reasonable excuse.

(2) MENTAL ELEMENT
Either have to do act deliberately to cause severe distress, physical injury or recognised psychiatric illness, or subjective intent may be imputed as a matter of fact if the D intends to cause severe distress.

(3) CONSEQUENCE ELEMENT
Cannot bring a claim for mere distress - must be physical injury or rec. PH
(However at mental element stage, intention to cause distress suffices.)