The tort of intentionally causing harm: will the Supreme Court’s pruning result in new growth, asks Catriona Stirling
The Supreme Court handed down its judgment in the case of OPO v MLA [2015] UKSC 32, [2015] All ER (D) 177 (May) recently. The decision has, rightly, been presented as a victory for free speech, but it is also an important and interesting case from a tort law perspective.
Background
Mr Rhodes, a well-known concert pianist and author, wished to publish his memoirs. Certain passages in those memoirs gave a graphic account of horrific sexual abuse that he suffered at school and its effect on him.
Rhodes’ former wife wished to stop the publication of those passages on the ground that it risked causing psychological harm to their son who is now 12. Evidence suggested that he was likely to suffer severe emotional distress and psychological harm if exposed to the material in the book.
It was alleged that publication would constitute the tort of intentionally causing physical or psychological harm. This tort was recognised in the case of Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2
