0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust, Court of Appeal

3 December 2001
The issues

Employment – harassment – whether campaign of rudeness amounted to intentional infliction of harm. (N.B. second defendant’s application for dismissal).

The facts

W was employed by the NHS Trust. Other employees including M had subjected W to rudeness and unfriendliness. There had been an incident of assault on M by W and on another occasion M had threatened W with “reprisals”. W left work in March 1995. Later that year she brought a private prosecution against M resulting in M’s conviction for common assault. £75 compensation had been ordered and was paid. In 1998 W brought an action against the Trust and M alleging physical and psychiatric injury as a result of the actions of M and other employee’s which the Trust was reliable.

M applied to strike out on the grounds that there was no tort of harassment at common law for the Protection for Harassment 1997 and that the Acts complained of and could not amount to the intention infliction of harm under the principal in Wilkinson v Downton. The claimant appealed against the order striking out.

The decision
  1. There was no Tort of Harassment before the Enactment of the Protection from Harassment 1997.
  2. The judge had properly excluded the assault on W from his consideration because Section 45 of the 1861 Offences against the Person Act provided that following a conviction no subsequent reliance can be placed upon it. The wrong constituted by the assault was therefore “exhausted”. The threat of reprisals was of no causative effect.
  3. There remained only the campaign of rudeness and unfriendliness, which could not amount to the intentional infliction of harm.

Appeal dismissed.

focus on...

Legal updates

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).


Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.


Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.


Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up