Intentional Torts

• Also known as trespass to the person

• Oldest tort. Steele: ‘during the medieval period, trespass was the law of (what we now call) “tort”’.

• Trespass vs Negligence – Rough guide:

  • If an injury is inflicted deliberately (e.g. setting a trap) it will be trespass to the person

  • If an injury results from carelessness (e.g. accidentally letting someone fall down a manhole) it will be negligence.

    • Letang v Cooper [1965] – D ran over P while she was sunbathing on a piece of grass where the cars were parked. Plaintiff filed a claim in trespass to the person, because the claim in negligence was time-barred. Rejected.

  • Iqbal v Prison Officers Association [2009] – officer omitted to unlock prison cell during strike action. Iqbal was normally allowed out for 6hrs a day. Tried to claim this was false imprisonment. Held there can be no false imprisonment by omission.

    • Claimant had no legal right to be released from his cell each day – no legal duty to ensure that Claimant was released each day.

    • But damages awarded for lack of freedom (2 hours)

  • Some kind of intention/recklessness is therefore required as the intention for these torts.

• Assault

  • Causing someone to think that they are about to be the victim of immediate unlawful force.

  • NB different from criminal

    • In criminal law the victim merely has to think they are about to be battered – in tort law they have to reasonably think they are about to be battered.

  • Can have assault without battery

    • Stephens v Myers [1830] The defendant advanced with raised fists. Was prevented from actually hitting the claimant. There was assault but no battery.

  • D’s conduct must cause C to reasonably apprehend an imminent battery.

  • Words and silence can amount to assault.

    • R v Ireland [1998] Criminal case – silent phone calls amounted to an assault.

• Battery

  • This is the unlawful touching of the claimant.

  • Does not require violence, but does require intention and some element of hostility

    • Wilson v Pringle [1987] - As a schoolboy prank, the defendant pulled another 13-year old pupils’ bag, causing the claimant to fall over and suffer hip injuries. The court held that hostility was a necessary element of an actionable battery.

    • Some touching, even when there is no consent, may be necessary in the course of daily life – this is not battery. E.g. riding the tube in rush hour.

  • J. Murphy: ‘there can be no battery unless there is an act by the defendant’.

    • Innes v Wylie [1844] A police officer was blocking a doorway. The claimant ran into him and bounced off, suffering personal injury

      • In the battery claim, there was no intent, nor an act; the act was of the claimant

    • Note in criminal law you can commit battery by omission Santa Bermudez (police officer syringe case)

• False Imprisonment

  • Needs complete restraint of movement

    • Bird v Jones [1845] - The claimant opposed the construction of a grandstand so entered at one side. He was prevented from leaving the grandstand at the other side. Held no false imprisonment

      • There was still an opportunity to escape by going back to the other side of the grandstand

    • R (Jollah) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] – Jollah was an asylum seeker who was ordered to stay home after dark. Home Office thought they had the power to order this. Held the restraint was unlawful, there was a threat attached and therefore the was a restrain within some limits defined by a will or power external to the claimants own.

• Intentional Infliction of Physical or Emotional Harm

  • Comes from Wilkinson v Downton [1897] – parton of Mr W’s pub informed Mrs W that Mr W had suffered severe injury. Mrs Wilkinson suffered severe mental injury as a result of this news. Recovery for intentionally inflicted injury was allowed.

    • Three conditions must be satisfied:

      • 1) There must be extreme conduct

      • 2) The must be an intent to cause psychological harm

      • 3) Mental injury must result from the conduct

    • Wright J: arises “when the defendant…wilfully [does] an act calculated to cause physical harm…and thereby has in fact caused physical harm.

  • Khorasandjian v Bush [1993] - Defendant stalking claimant, made calls to her home, scratched family car etc. Harassment Act not in law at the time.

  • Wainwright v Home Office [2003] The claimants were strip-searched for drugs on a prison visit. One of the visitors suffered mental injury as a result of this incident

    • Held that the claimant must prove that the defendant intended to cause physical harm and/or severe or emotional or mental distress. There was no intention, nor a relevant tort of privacy

  • Rhodes v OPA [2015] – Claimant was 11 years old, psychologically vulnerable. Had regular contact with his father James Rhodes who was writing a memoir. This memoir wass an account of the physical and sexual abuse he suffered as a young boy and his subsequent battles with drink, drugs and his own mental health. Ex-wife sought an injunction forbidding him from publishing it.

    • Rhodes won, and book was published.

    • Supreme Court held that the tort under Wilkinson v Downton consists of three elements:

      • 1) A conduct element: “words or conduct directed towards the claimant for which there is no justification or reasonable excuse, and the burden of proof is on the claimant.”

        • Court placed great...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our GDL Tort Law Notes.