Wilkinson v Downton [1897]
Share
Wilkinson v Downton [1897] EWHC 1 (QB) is a landmark English tort law case in which the court first recognised the tort of intentional infliction of mental shock. This tort was necessary at the time because such claims were not covered under the law of negligence.
The case arose from a practical joke played by a regular customer, Mr Downton, on Mrs Wilkinson, the wife of Thomas Wilkinson, who was the landlord of the Albion public house in Limehouse, London. While Mr Wilkinson was away at the races, Downton approached Mrs Wilkinson and falsely informed her that her husband had been seriously injured in an accident, suffering two broken legs. He added that Mr Wilkinson was at The Elms in Leytonstone and advised her to bring a cab and two pillows to carry him home.
The false statement caused Mrs Wilkinson severe distress, resulting in a violent shock to her nervous system, leading to vomiting, her hair turning white, and other significant physical and mental consequences. These effects were not due to any prior health issues but were directly caused by the distress from Downton's lie. Mrs Wilkinson subsequently sued for damages under an action on the case.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Wright established a new cause of action for the intentional infliction of mental shock. He awarded Mrs Wilkinson £100 in damages and a small additional sum for the costs she incurred in sending people to Leytonstone based on Downton’s misrepresentation. Wright J noted that the case did not involve battery since there was no physical contact, and it was not an assault as there was no apprehension of immediate violence. However, he recognised that Downton’s deliberate act was calculated to cause physical harm and did in fact cause such harm to Mrs Wilkinson. Wright J’s ruling established that the key elements of the tort are that the defendant must have intentionally done an act calculated to cause harm and that harm must actually result from it.
The principle established in Wilkinson v Downton was reaffirmed in subsequent cases, such as Janvier v Sweeney in 1919, where the Court of Appeal upheld a similar claim. In that case, a woman named Mlle Janvier suffered severe nervous shock after being falsely accused of spying during World War I, leading to a successful claim for damages.
Over the years, the scope of the tort has been refined. In Wainwright v Home Office, the House of Lords clarified that the tort of intentional infliction of mental shock is limited to cases where recognised psychiatric injury is involved and that the tort does not cover mere distress or anxiety. The case involved a young man with cerebral palsy who was strip-searched in a degrading manner, but the court found that there was no actionable claim under Wilkinson v Downton as the necessary intention to cause psychiatric harm was not established.
More recently, in Rhodes v OPO [2015], the UK Supreme Court reviewed the jurisprudence surrounding Wilkinson and emphasised the importance of protecting freedom of expression. The court ruled that, while the intention to cause harm remains an essential element of the tort, recklessness is not sufficient; there must be an actual intent to cause severe distress. In their leading judgment, Lady Hale and Lord Toulson noted that the resulting harm must be a recognised psychiatric illness and that the tort should be narrowly defined to maintain legal certainty and protect free speech. In a concurring judgment, Lord Neuberger suggested that significant distress, rather than more serious harm, could potentially be enough for a claim, but cautioned that the boundaries of the tort should remain clear.
Overall, Wilkinson v Downton remains a foundational case in English tort law, establishing the principle that intentional acts causing severe mental distress can be actionable, while subsequent case law has continued to define and limit the scope of this tort to prevent its misuse and maintain a balance between individual rights and freedom of expression.
The case arose from a practical joke played by a regular customer, Mr Downton, on Mrs Wilkinson, the wife of Thomas Wilkinson, who was the landlord of the Albion public house in Limehouse, London. While Mr Wilkinson was away at the races, Downton approached Mrs Wilkinson and falsely informed her that her husband had been seriously injured in an accident, suffering two broken legs. He added that Mr Wilkinson was at The Elms in Leytonstone and advised her to bring a cab and two pillows to carry him home.
The false statement caused Mrs Wilkinson severe distress, resulting in a violent shock to her nervous system, leading to vomiting, her hair turning white, and other significant physical and mental consequences. These effects were not due to any prior health issues but were directly caused by the distress from Downton's lie. Mrs Wilkinson subsequently sued for damages under an action on the case.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Wright established a new cause of action for the intentional infliction of mental shock. He awarded Mrs Wilkinson £100 in damages and a small additional sum for the costs she incurred in sending people to Leytonstone based on Downton’s misrepresentation. Wright J noted that the case did not involve battery since there was no physical contact, and it was not an assault as there was no apprehension of immediate violence. However, he recognised that Downton’s deliberate act was calculated to cause physical harm and did in fact cause such harm to Mrs Wilkinson. Wright J’s ruling established that the key elements of the tort are that the defendant must have intentionally done an act calculated to cause harm and that harm must actually result from it.
The principle established in Wilkinson v Downton was reaffirmed in subsequent cases, such as Janvier v Sweeney in 1919, where the Court of Appeal upheld a similar claim. In that case, a woman named Mlle Janvier suffered severe nervous shock after being falsely accused of spying during World War I, leading to a successful claim for damages.
Over the years, the scope of the tort has been refined. In Wainwright v Home Office, the House of Lords clarified that the tort of intentional infliction of mental shock is limited to cases where recognised psychiatric injury is involved and that the tort does not cover mere distress or anxiety. The case involved a young man with cerebral palsy who was strip-searched in a degrading manner, but the court found that there was no actionable claim under Wilkinson v Downton as the necessary intention to cause psychiatric harm was not established.
More recently, in Rhodes v OPO [2015], the UK Supreme Court reviewed the jurisprudence surrounding Wilkinson and emphasised the importance of protecting freedom of expression. The court ruled that, while the intention to cause harm remains an essential element of the tort, recklessness is not sufficient; there must be an actual intent to cause severe distress. In their leading judgment, Lady Hale and Lord Toulson noted that the resulting harm must be a recognised psychiatric illness and that the tort should be narrowly defined to maintain legal certainty and protect free speech. In a concurring judgment, Lord Neuberger suggested that significant distress, rather than more serious harm, could potentially be enough for a claim, but cautioned that the boundaries of the tort should remain clear.
Overall, Wilkinson v Downton remains a foundational case in English tort law, establishing the principle that intentional acts causing severe mental distress can be actionable, while subsequent case law has continued to define and limit the scope of this tort to prevent its misuse and maintain a balance between individual rights and freedom of expression.
