Intentional Infliction of Harm
The Rule of Wilkinson v Downton - Tort
Introduction:
Wilkinson v Downton Harassment Act 1997
• The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton concerns the intentional, indirect infliction of harm. It is different from battery
which requires touching, as here, there doesn’t need to be direct toughing.
Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 Q.B. 57
• C was a landlady of a pub. Someone she knew (D) told her that her husband had been in an accident and had
broken both legs. This was a lie, the man wanted to prank C. C suffered nervous shock and a later illness that
lasted 4 weeks. D was found liable.
• Wright J at 58-9:
“The defendant has … wilfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm to the plaintiff - that is to say, to
infringe her legal right to personal safety, and has in fact thereby caused physical harm to her. That proposition
without more appears to me to state a good cause of action, there being no justification alleged for the act. This
wilful injuria is in law malicious, although no malicious purpose to cause the harm which was caused, nor any
motive of spite is imputed to the defendant.”
Requirements of the Tort:
1. An act on D’s part that has caused harm to C.
2. D must have intention to cause harm to C.
• The harm to C must be a recognised psychiatric illness, nothing like anxiety or distress. It must be serious distress
etc.
Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 1721
• What level of harm is required for liability?
• This was a case of bullying. C would have to show that the harm was more than merely distressing. There would
have to be physical injury or recognised psychiatric illness.
• Hale L.J. at [12]:
“For the tort to be committed, … there has to be actual damage. The damage is physical harm or recognised
psychiatric illness. The defendant must have intended to violate the claimant’s interest in his freedom from such
harm. The conduct complained of has to be such that that degree of harm is sufficiently likely to result that the
defendant cannot be heard to say that he did not ‘mean’ it to do so.
Wainwright v Home Office [2001] EWCA Civ 2081
• Mother and son visited a prison; both were subjected to a strip search which was not appropriate and not
supposed to happen. The boy developed PTSD due to him being unlawfully touched (battery). The mother had
not been unlawfully touched but also brought a claim for her distress. It was decided there was no claim for the
mother as the correct level of intention was not present.
• Lord Hoffmann:
[44] “I do not resile from the proposition that the policy considerations which limit the heads of recoverable
damages in negligence do not apply equally to torts of intention. If someone actually intends to cause harm by a
wrongful act and does so, there is ordinarily no reason why he should not have to pay compensation. But I think
that if you adopt such a principle you have to be very careful about what you mean by intend.”
C v D [2006] EWHC 166 (QB), [2006] 2 WLUK 629 (not very authoritative case!)
• School abuse case. The courts decided that the first incident (videoing) only resulted in distress, so no claim was
possible. However the second incident (stripping) led to psychiatric harm which could lead to a claim. D’s
recklessness also amounts to intention.
• Field J at [94]:
“It is clear from what Lord Hoffmann says [in Wainwright] that even if an intention to cause harm can be
established the principle in Wilkinson v Downton (including imputed intention) is only available if the harm suffered
The Rule of Wilkinson v Downton - Tort
Introduction:
Wilkinson v Downton Harassment Act 1997
• The Rule in Wilkinson v Downton concerns the intentional, indirect infliction of harm. It is different from battery
which requires touching, as here, there doesn’t need to be direct toughing.
Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 Q.B. 57
• C was a landlady of a pub. Someone she knew (D) told her that her husband had been in an accident and had
broken both legs. This was a lie, the man wanted to prank C. C suffered nervous shock and a later illness that
lasted 4 weeks. D was found liable.
• Wright J at 58-9:
“The defendant has … wilfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm to the plaintiff - that is to say, to
infringe her legal right to personal safety, and has in fact thereby caused physical harm to her. That proposition
without more appears to me to state a good cause of action, there being no justification alleged for the act. This
wilful injuria is in law malicious, although no malicious purpose to cause the harm which was caused, nor any
motive of spite is imputed to the defendant.”
Requirements of the Tort:
1. An act on D’s part that has caused harm to C.
2. D must have intention to cause harm to C.
• The harm to C must be a recognised psychiatric illness, nothing like anxiety or distress. It must be serious distress
etc.
Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 1721
• What level of harm is required for liability?
• This was a case of bullying. C would have to show that the harm was more than merely distressing. There would
have to be physical injury or recognised psychiatric illness.
• Hale L.J. at [12]:
“For the tort to be committed, … there has to be actual damage. The damage is physical harm or recognised
psychiatric illness. The defendant must have intended to violate the claimant’s interest in his freedom from such
harm. The conduct complained of has to be such that that degree of harm is sufficiently likely to result that the
defendant cannot be heard to say that he did not ‘mean’ it to do so.
Wainwright v Home Office [2001] EWCA Civ 2081
• Mother and son visited a prison; both were subjected to a strip search which was not appropriate and not
supposed to happen. The boy developed PTSD due to him being unlawfully touched (battery). The mother had
not been unlawfully touched but also brought a claim for her distress. It was decided there was no claim for the
mother as the correct level of intention was not present.
• Lord Hoffmann:
[44] “I do not resile from the proposition that the policy considerations which limit the heads of recoverable
damages in negligence do not apply equally to torts of intention. If someone actually intends to cause harm by a
wrongful act and does so, there is ordinarily no reason why he should not have to pay compensation. But I think
that if you adopt such a principle you have to be very careful about what you mean by intend.”
C v D [2006] EWHC 166 (QB), [2006] 2 WLUK 629 (not very authoritative case!)
• School abuse case. The courts decided that the first incident (videoing) only resulted in distress, so no claim was
possible. However the second incident (stripping) led to psychiatric harm which could lead to a claim. D’s
recklessness also amounts to intention.
• Field J at [94]:
“It is clear from what Lord Hoffmann says [in Wainwright] that even if an intention to cause harm can be
established the principle in Wilkinson v Downton (including imputed intention) is only available if the harm suffered
