“English law has no general tort of invasion of privacy.”
Mrs. Wainwright and her son were strip-searched when visiting a prisoner at Leeds Prison. The searches were conducted improperly and caused distress. They sued for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Whether English law recognizes a general tort of invasion of privacy and whether there is a tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress without physical harm.
The House of Lords held that English law does not recognize a general tort of invasion of privacy or intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claims failed.
This landmark decision clarified that English tort law does not provide general privacy protection, distinguishing English law from other jurisdictions. It remains crucial for understanding privacy rights and tort law's boundaries, though subsequent developments under human rights law have provided alternative protections.
You're reading the free summary of Wainwright v Home Office. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Wainwright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
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.