header-logo header-logo

29 May 2015
Issue: 7654 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Tort

Rhodes v OPO (by his litigation friend) and another [2015] UKSC 32, [2015] All ER (D) 177 (May)

A famous concert pianist, author and television film-maker (J) sought to publish a book about his life, which included details of the abuse he had suffered as a child. His ex-wife sought to prevent the release of the book on the ground that it would cause their young son psychological harm. A High Court judge dismissed an application on behalf of the child for an interim injunction. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, held that the claim alleging that the release of the book would constitute the tort of intentionally causing harm to the son should go for trial (Wilkinson v Downton [1895-9] All ER Rep 267) and it granted an interim injunction restricting its publication in a certain form. The Supreme Court, allowing J’s appeal, considered the proper approach to the tort of intentionally causing physical or psychological harm in modern law and held that the publication of the book was not within the scope of the conduct element of the tort of wilful infringement of the right

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