“Court establishes tort for intentionally causing harm through false statements”
The defendant was liable for the physical harm caused to the plaintiff by his intentional false statement, even though there was no direct physical contact.
The defendant falsely told Mrs Wilkinson that her husband had been seriously injured in an accident and that she should bring pillows and blankets to collect him. This false statement, made as a practical joke, caused Mrs Wilkinson severe shock resulting in physical illness and nervous disorder.
Whether a defendant can be liable in tort for intentionally making false statements that cause physical harm to the plaintiff, absent any direct physical contact or existing legal relationship.
Wright J held that where a defendant willfully does an act calculated to cause physical harm and does in fact cause such harm, there is a valid cause of action. The law should provide a remedy for intentional acts that directly cause physical consequences, regardless of whether they fit into established tort categories.
This case established the rule in Wilkinson v Downton, creating liability for intentional infliction of harm through conduct falling outside traditional tort categories. It has been influential in developing the law of intentional torts and harassment.
Making false statements wilfully calculated to cause physical harm through shock, which do cause such harm, constitutes an actionable tort without proof of special damage.
The court held the defendant liable for physical illness caused by his intentionally false statement about the claimant's husband being seriously injured.
It established the foundation for liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress and remains influential in modern psychiatric injury claims.
Put your case reading into practice. The free readiness diagnostic covers SQE1 subjects and highlights where to revise next. No account needed.
Try the free SQE1 diagnosticWright J noted that the principle should be limited to cases where physical harm actually results from the defendant's intentional conduct, suggesting the tort requires both intent and physical consequences.
OSCOLA Citation
Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57
Read the judgment for Wilkinson v Downton as published by The National Archives (Find Case Law).
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
[2026] EWHC 1095 (KB)
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.