header-logo header-logo

01 April 2020 / Mark Pawlowski
Issue: 7881 / Categories: Features , Profession , Criminal
printer mail-detail

Law stories: Practical jokers beware

18646
Mark Pawlowski examines the tortious liability of practical jokers in the context of both English & Commonwealth case law

There are three elements to the so-called rule in Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57, [1895-99] All ER Rep 267: (i) a conduct element; (ii) a mental element; and (iii) a consequence element. The first requires that words or conduct are directed to the claimant for which there is no justification or excuse. Second, the defendant must actually intend to cause psychiatric harm, severe mental or emotional distress to the claimant. Third, the necessary consequence of liability must be physical harm or recognised psychiatric illness: see Rhodes v OPO [2015] UKSC 32, [2015] 4 All ER 1 and Wainwright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53, [2003] 4 All ER 969.

In Wilkinson itself, the defendant, by way of a practical joke, informed the claimant that her husband had been injured in an accident and was lying at the Elms, public house, in Leytonstone with both legs broken, and that

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 transformed criminal justice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ed Cape of UWE and Matthew Hardcastle and Sandra Paul of Kingsley Napley trace its ‘seismic impact’
Operational resilience is no longer optional. Writing in NLJ this week, Emma Radmore and Michael Lewis of Womble Bond Dickinson explain how UK regulators expect firms to identify ‘important business services’ that could cause ‘intolerable levels of harm’ if disrupted
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
back-to-top-scroll