Rule In Wilkinson V Downton

Woman was falsely told her husband had been involved in a serious accident and that he had broken both legs. D claimed he was playing a practical joke. Claimant suffered huge shock to the system and psychological harm. At the time there was no recognition of psychiatric harm for negligence. The court said because the defendant intentionally caused indirect harm, there could be a claim

Grounded the rule from the above case. D was a private detective and pretended to be a police officer to get documents off the claimant. He told her that she was suspected of colluding with a German spy so needed to search her property and take documents off her. Claimant suffered serious shock and psychological injury. Wilkinson v Downton was relied on and it was said the defendant could have seen some form of harm would come from his actions.

young woman had a friendhsip with a 23 year old man. The friendship broke down and he started harassing her. CA allowed broad injunction to prevent D from 'harassing, pestering and communicating with the plaintiff' by combining Wilkinson v Downton and private nuisance.

'It is ridiculous if in this present age the law is that the making of deliberately harassing and pestering law phone calls...is only actionable in civil courts if the recipient of the calls happens to have the freehold or a leasehold proprietary interest in the premise in which he receives calls'

Gibson dissented saying there was no inherent interest in land so private nuisance and must not be applicable.

Acts occurred before 1997. Claimant argued she had been bullied at work and the claimant argued she had been bullied by one of her colleagues and as a consequence had suffered significant mental illness. Tried to argue Wilkinson v Downton applied but the court said for this to work there had to be recognised psychiatric injury so they limits its application.

3(1) a person must not pursue course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another, and which he knows or ought to know amoutns to harassment

3(2) the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to [or involves] harassment if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment.

3(3) justifications for harassment (e.g. to prevent a crime or course of conduct was reasonable etc)

3(7) ss(2) referencing to harassing a person includes alarming the person or causing the person distress.

Defendant does not have to foresee or inend any psychological injury, empahsis is on whether the reasonable person will see the conduct as harassing.

Lau v Dpp

Kelly v Dpp

Curtis

Course of conduct must amount to harassment. man and young woman. Man was pursuing her (he sent flowers, letters and secretly filmed her). Court said that only some of these instances would constitute harassment. This raised question of what constitutes legitimate courting?

Claimants were a woman and son. They were visiting a relative in leeds prison. Before they entered the prison, the police officers infomred them that they needed to be stripped searched. The officers breached guidelines on how to do this. As a result the woman claimed that the search was a violation of her dignity. There was not tort of battery except for one instance where the son's penis was touched. No negligence as there was no recognised psychiatric injury and court also rejected wilkinson v downton argument. They said it should have 'no leading role in the modern law of tort and instead should be allowed to disappear.'

reigniting the rule in Wilkinson v Downton. Famous musician wanted to write a memoir. He had suffered a long period of sexual abuse. He was including this in his autobiography. He had a young son who was pretty vulnrable and ther were concerns that the son would get hold of the memoirs and the reading about the abuse would have a negative ffect on him. Representatives for the son were arguing or an injunction to be granted to stop the book from being published. The only course of action would be Wilkinson v Downton. CA granted an injunction

Supreme Court overtuned decision in O v A as Wilkinson v Downton was concerned with false information but in O v A the information was not false. The case also raised issues of freedom to piblicsh. They said the intention aspect in Wilinson v Downton rule could not be met. Lady Hale clarified the criteria:

1) conduct element requiring words or conduct directed at the claimant for which there was no justification or excuse.

2) the mental element requiring an intention to cause at least severe mental or emotional distress

3) the consequence element requiring physical harm or recognised psychiatric illness

Teacher at special needs school pursued and developed a relationship with one of the pupils (he allegedly raped and engaged in oral sex with her). There were numerous instances of her ringing her late at night and encouraged her numerous times to send nudes. He pled guilty in the criminal case for possessing images of a minor. claimant brought a civil case against the defendant school by saying she suffered mental illness as a result of the relationshp. A battery claim was pursued. Judge said there was not enough evidence for rape or oral sex but for claims of other sexual touching there was evidence. Her consent wasn't valid because she was underage, vulnerable and one of his pupils. Held, a tort could be formed under Wilkinson v Downton as the defendant intentionally engaged in indirect conduct with the claimant. Consequence element was met because the claimant suffered recognised psychiatric injury as a result.