Wilson v Pringle [1987]

Wilson v Pringle [1987] QB 237 is a pivotal case in the law of torts, which clarified the requirements for establishing battery. The case emphasised that for a successful claim, the touching must be both intentional and hostile.

The facts of the case revolved around an incident where the claimant alleged that the defendant committed the tort of battery by intentionally engaging in physical contact that caused harm. The defendant contended that the act was a playful gesture during horseplay, involving the pulling of the claimant's schoolbag off his shoulder, which inadvertently caused the claimant to fall and sustain injuries.

At trial, the judge found in favour of the claimant, holding that the defendant’s actions constituted battery. The judge applied the principle from Collins v Wilcock [1984], stating that touching outside the bounds of what is generally acceptable in ordinary life amounts to battery. The trial judge characterised the act as hostile, as it was not within the limits of socially accepted behaviour.

The Court of Appeal, however, overturned this decision. Croom-Johnson LJ, delivering the leading judgment, clarified the elements of battery in tort law. He held that battery requires intentional touching, and for such touching to amount to battery, it must be proved to be hostile. The court defined hostility as a factual matter, distinct from ill will, malevolence, or a purely expressed intention to cause harm. Importantly, the court rejected the idea that battery should be judged solely on whether the contact was acceptable within the ordinary conduct of life, as suggested in Collins v Wilcock.

This judgment created a distinction between the approach to battery in tort law and criminal law. While Collins v Wilcock implied that battery might involve any contact beyond what is generally acceptable in daily life, Wilson v Pringle introduced a more nuanced approach, requiring hostility in the context of tortious claims. The decision shifted the focus from general societal norms to the nature of the interaction and the presence of intentional hostility.

In conclusion, Wilson v Pringle reinforced that battery in tort law requires both intentional and hostile touching. The case remains significant for delineating the boundaries of liability in situations involving physical contact, particularly where the intent and context of the interaction are at issue.