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 she was to go at once in a cab with

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

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll