intentional infliction of harm CASES

In English law, intentional infliction of harm is a descriptive term used to refer to limited and narrowly defined causes of action where a defendant deliberately causes physical or psychiatric harm through wrongful conduct.

Legal status and scope

There is no general tort of intentional infliction of harm in English law. Instead, liability arises in specific circumstances recognised by case law, most notably the principle established in Wilkinson v Downton.

Claims of this type are exceptional and apply only where the defendant’s conduct is intentional, unjustified, and calculated to cause serious harm.

Wilkinson v Downton principle

Under the Wilkinson v Downton line of authority, liability may arise where a defendant makes a false representation or engages in conduct intended to cause physical harm or severe mental distress, and such harm results.

The courts have emphasised that the conduct must be deliberate and outrageous, and that ordinary negligence or distress is insufficient.

Intent and harm

The defendant must have intended to cause harm, or been reckless as to whether serious harm would occur. The harm suffered must be recognisable physical injury or a medically recognised psychiatric condition.

Relationship with other causes of action

Claims described as intentional infliction of harm often overlap with other torts such as assault, harassment, or negligence. Courts are cautious not to extend liability beyond established categories.

Practical importance

While rarely successful, these claims provide a route to liability where deliberate wrongdoing causes serious harm but falls outside more conventional torts.