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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll