In Wilkinson v Downton Wright J recognised that wilful infringement of the right to personal safety was a tort. "subject": true, appeared to qualify the mental element of the tort, observing that Wilkinson does not require actual subjective intent to cause physical harm; rather, according to her Ladyship, “calculated” means deliberately doing an act that is “likely”, all things considered, to result in the degree of physical harm that was in fact suffered (at [10]–[11]). This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Wilkinson v Downton [1897] QB 57. Facts. A customer of the pub, Downton played a practical joke on her. Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™ As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep Course. The Wilkinson formulation was subsequently endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Javier v Sweeney [1919] 2 K.B. Archive • 01.06.2015 • . He told her, falsely, that her husband had … Continue reading Wilkinson v Downton; 8 May 1997 As to this [amount] expended in railway fares on the faith of the defendant's statement, I think the case is clearly within the decision in Pasley v. Freeman. "openAccess": "0", . The principle that where a defendant has wilfully committed an act or made a statement calculated to cause physical harm, and which does cause physical harm (including psychiatric injury), it is actionable. Wilkinson v. Downton Case Brief - Citation[1897] 2 Q.B. The statement was false, but the plaintiff believed it to be true. . C got a violent shock to her nervous system. } This case is first example of an action, which depends on … The friendship broke down and he started harassing her. 57. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse. "crossMark": true, Facts. Wilkinson v Downton and Harassment full summary notes. Facts. We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. After considering the three base elements of the Rhodes Court's newly reformulated tort, and giving Newcastle University. He lived nearby, and therefore was well acquainted with Thomas Wilkinson, the landlord of the 'Albion', and his wife Lavinia. Roycroft, Pita, The Tort of Wilkinson v Downton after Rhodes: The Reincarnation of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Its Future Viability in New Zealand (September 1, 2016). Wilkinson v Downton – Case Summary. The defendant decided to play a practical joke on the claimant. Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. These consequences were not in any way the result of previous ill-health or weakness of constitution; nor was there any evidence of predisposition to nervous shock or any other idiosyncrasy. Subsequently, Lord Hoffmann, writing the principal judgment for the House of Lords in Wainwright v Home Office [2003] UKHL 53; [2004] 2 A.C. 406, revisited both elements of the tort. clearly threats made with ‘an intention to terrify’ the claimant,31 thus making the defendant liable under the rule in Wilkinson v Downton for the physical injury suffered by the claimant. There must be judgment for the plaintiff. Neither of these reasons is applicable to the present case. Written by Stephanie Whitton Wilkinson v Downton [1897] EWHC 1 (QB), [1897] 2 QB 57. A more serious difficulty is the decision in Allsop v. Allsop, which was approved by the House of Lords in Lynch v. Knight. "lang": "en" This paper considers the future of the so-called Wilkinson v Downton tort in light of the recent United Kingdom Supreme Court decision in Rhodes v OPO. Background. that illness caused by a slanderous imputation of unchastity in the case of a married woman did not constitute such special damage as would sustain an action for such a slander. Created in Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 Q.B. I put it up here so I can listen and see and learn more efficiently. Citations: [1897] 2 QB 57. General Principles of Tort (LAW2161) All this was false. Module. University. 30 October 2015. It shares land borders with Wales to … Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2015, Hostname: page-component-546c57c664-52zhk But I think that those cases are to be explained on a different ground, namely, that the damage which immediately resulted from the act of the passenger or of the horse was really the result, not of that act, but of a fright which rendered that act involuntary, and which therefore ought to be regarded as itself the direct and immediate cause of the damage. Plaintiff suffered violent nervous shock and physical illness when, as a practical joke, defendant told plaintiff that her husband broke both of his legs in an accident. But that was a very different case from the present. It was argued for her that she is entitled to recover this as being damage caused by fraud, and therefore within the doctrine established by Pasley v. Freeman and Langridge v. Levy. . Wilkinson v Downton High Court. Note: The following opinion was edited by LexisNexis Courtroom Cast staff. Wilkinson v Downton and Harassment. This wilful injuria is in law malicious, although no malicious purpose to cause the harm which was caused nor any motive of spite is imputed to the defendant. 727. §WD.1 According to the original rule in Wilkinson v Downton , D is liable in tort if he conveys information to C, knowing that information to be untrue, and as a result of believing the information to be true, C suffers injury or harm. Supreme Court on tort in Wilkinson v Downton and the pianist’s memoir News. Thomas Wilkinson was the landlord of the Albion public house in Limehouse.A regular customer of the public house named Downton decided to play a practical joke on Wilkinson's wife. The rule in Wilkinson v Downton is essentially that there must be INTENTION -it is still an intentional tort, as opposed to negligence.Letang v Cooper tells us that negligence is not enough for trespass torts because of the different statute time-limit for negligence actions.Venna can be used to show that recklessness will be enough. In Wilkinson v Downton, Wright J held that a tort action was available where the defendant wilfully did an act calculated to cause physical harm, and physical harm resulted. One question is whether the defendant's act was so plainly calculated to produce some effect of the kind which was produced that an intention to produce it ought to be imputed to the defendant, regard being had to the fact that the effect was produced on a person proved to be in an ordinary state of health and mind. "languageSwitch": true Created in Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 Q.B. Wilkinson v Downton was relied on and it was said the defendant could have seen some form of harm would come from his actions. This is me reading my notes back. England is a country that is part of the United Kingdom. Use of this website constitutes acceptance of the Terms and Conditions and "isLogged": "0", "metricsAbstractViews": false, Intentionally Inflicted Harm: The Prima Facie Case and Defenses. He affirmed that, traditionally, it requires proof of actual harm, such as psychiatric illness, as distinct from mere distress (at [45]); and, consistently with Lady Hale's judgment in Wong, he interpreted Wilkinson as providing that the intent to cause such harm can be “imputed” to the defendant if it is an obvious consequence of a deliberate act, even though such harm may not have been subjectively appreciated or intended (at [37], [40]). 107 WILKINSON V DOWNTON AFTER RHODES AND ITS FUTURE VIABILITY IN NEW ZEALAND Pita Roycroft* This article analyses the tort in Wilkinson v Downton, commonly referred to as intentional infliction of emotional distress, in light of the United Kingdom Supreme Court's decision in Rhodes v OPO. the cost of railway fares of persons sent by the plaintiff to Leytonstone in obedience to the pretended message. Facts: Plaintiff suffered violent nervous shock and physical illness when, as a practical joke, defendant told plaintiff that her husband broke both of his legs in an accident. 316 and again, 70 years later, in Khorasandjian v Bush [1993] Q.B. Query parameters: { 8. I think that it was. 57, is a famous tort law decision from England where the Common Law first created the tort of intentional infliction of mental shock.. Background. }, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197315000793. Found in: Dispute Resolution, Information Law, TMT. Total loading time: 0.639 rule in Wilkinson v Downton. In the particular case, the defendant, who knew it to be untrue, falsely told the plaintiff that her husband had been seriously injured in a motor accident. Quick Reference. Additionally, His Lordship contemplated expanding the tort to capture mere distress short of physical harm, but cautioned that, if the law was to expand to such cases (which he left to future courts to decide), “imputed intention will not do” (at [45]). He told her that her husband had been in a serious accident in which both his legs were broken. Get Wilkinson v. Downton, [1897] 2 Q.B. Wilkinson v Downton was subsequently approved by the Court of Appeal and followed in some other cases. This is a case which has been far more often discussed than applied. Later, in Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 172; [2003] 3 All E.R. Thomas Wilkinson, landlord of the Albion public house in Limehouse, went by train to the races at Harlow, leaving his wife Lavinia behind the bar. Case Analysis Torts Law. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. It suggests there is value in retaining the individual tort, rather than subsuming it within the tort of negligence, given its distinctive features including its basis in intent. Khorasandjian v Bush (judicial creativity) young woman had a friendhsip with a 23 year old man. OpenLearn from The … "peerReview": true, References: [1897] 2 QB 57, [1897] EWHC 1 (QB) Links: Bailii Coram: RS Wright J Ratio: Thomas Wilkinson, the landlord of a public house, went off by train, leaving his wife Lavinia behind the bar. This rule in Wilkinson vs Downtown (1897) 2 QB 57, is a very important one.The rule deals with the infliction of physical harm not by assault, battery or false imprisonment. Add to My Bookmarks Export citation. Wright J. held that the tort required an act be done “wilfully”, that is “calculated to cause physical harm”, and which does in fact cause “physical harm” (at 58–59). Rather, mere distress should in His Lordship's view only be recoverable (if at all) where the defendant had a “genuine intention to cause distress” (at [46]). 57, Queen’s Bench, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. It is difficult to imagine that such a statement, made suddenly and with apparent seriousness, could fail to produce grave effects under the circumstances upon any but an exceptionally indifferent person, and therefore an intention to produce such an effect must be imputed, and it is no answer in law to say that more harm was done than was anticipated, for that is commonly the case with all wrongs. It then apparently disappeared from sight in reported cases for 70 years or so, before making a minor resurgence over the last 25 years in a number of harassment cases, including Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 1721. "metrics": true, That case, however, appears to have been decided on the ground that in all the innumerable actions for slander there were no precedents for alleging illness to be sufficient special damage, and that it would be of evil consequence to treat it as sufficient, because such a rule might lead to an infinity of trumpery or groundless actions. Loading ... Donoghue v Stevenson : 5 law cases you should know (1/5) - Duration: 2:25. Wilkinson v Downton [1897] EWHC 1 (QB), [1897] 2 QB 57 is a famous English tort law decision in which the Common Law first recognised the tort of intentional infliction of mental shock. 57, the tort has long attracted the attention of academic commentators, but has rarely been argued successfully in English courts. Damages – Psychiatric harm – Remoteness . I think, however, that the verdict may be supported upon another ground. 57, the tort has long attracted the attention of academic commentators, but has rarely been argued successfully in English courts. "hasAccess": "0", . The decision in OPO v MLA [2014] EWCA Civ 1277 causes confusion to the rule in Wilkinson v Downton. In the latter case, the Court of Appeal emphasised that the wrongful conduct must cause “physical injury” – as distinct from “mere emotional distress” – and it must also be “calculated to cause” the same (at 735–36). "relatedCommentaries": true, Hunt Date 11/2015 Volume 74 Issue 03 Page start 392 Page end 395 DOI 10.1017/S0008197315000793 OpenURL Check for local electronic subscriptions Is part of Journal Title The Cambridge Law Journal ISSN 0008-1973 EISSN 1469-2139 Short title Yes, I look like a nerd, I speak weird and I have spazzy hair. In Wilkinson, the jury awarded the plaintiff damages for the physical suffering she endured as a result of severe shock that was caused when the defendant, playing a practical joke, falsely informed her that her husband had been injured in an accident. IN OPO v Rhodes [2015] UKSC 32, the Supreme Court clarified the elements of the tort of intentional infliction of harm. Wilkinson v. Downton. Privacy Policy. "comments": true, Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views. The issues in this case relate to the first and second elements. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings. Feature Flags last update: Sun Dec 20 2020 20:02:00 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) The statement was a misrepresentation intended to be acted on to the damage of the plaintiff. The defendant, as a practical joke, told a woman that her husband had been in a serious accident and that both his legs are broken. The effect of the statement on the plaintiff was a violent shock to her nervous system, producing vomiting and other more serious and permanent physical consequences at one time threatening her reason, and entailing weeks of suffering and incapacity to her as well as expense to her husband for medical attendance. That proposition without more appears to me to state a good cause of action, there being no justification alleged for the act. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in Wilkinson v Downton [1897] QB 57. Essential Cases: Tort Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. I think, however, that it must be admitted that the present case is without precedent. Downton (D) made a joke to Mrs Wilkinson (W) that her husband, Thomas Wilkinson (T) had had an accident in which both his legs were broken and that W should go to The Elms pub where T was lying to bring him home. Sign In to view the Rule of Law and Holding. . I am not sure that this would not be an extension of that doctrine, the real ground of which appears to be that a person who makes a false statement intended to be acted on must make good the damage naturally resulting from its being acted on. It remains to consider whether the assumptions involved in the proposition are made out. Wilkinson v Downton [1897] EWHC 1 (QB), [1897] 2 QB 57 is a famous English tort law decision in which the Common Law first recognised the tort of intentional infliction of mental shock. Apart from authority, I should give the same answer and on the same ground as the last question, and say that it was not too remote. Created in Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 Q.B. WILKINSON v DOWNTON AND ACTS CALCULATED TO CAUSE PHYSICAL HARM1 Introduction At ten o'clock on the evening of April 9th 1896, one Downton entered the 'Albion' public house in St. Paul's Road in east London. Wilkinson v Downton Revisited. . Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57. Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57. As Stuart-Smith LJ put it in Powell v Boldaz, in such a case the defendant’s statement is uttered ‘with the intention that it should be believed and with the intention of causing injury.’32 In that case it was held . © 2020 Courtroom Connect, Inc. Victoria University of Wellington Legal Research Paper, Student/Alumni Paper No. D, in order to make a joke to a woman, gave her false information that her husband had an accident, had legs broken and was seriously harmed. View all Google Scholar citations Feature Flags: { "clr": false, The defendant has, as I assume for the moment, wilfully done an act calculated to cause physical harm to the plaintiff--that is to say, to infringe her legal right to personal safety, and has in fact thereby caused physical harm to her. In Smith v. Johnson & Co., decided in January last, Justice Brucevand I held that where a man was killed in the sight of the plaintiff by the defendant's negligence, and the plaintiff became ill, not from the shock from fear of harm to himself, but from the shock of seeing another person killed, this harm was too remote a consequence of the negligence. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Render date: 2020-12-20T20:53:44.055Z Wright, Justice. A strong line of authorities indicates that the defendant must either have an actual intention to cause physical injury or be reckless as to the causing of such harm, the latter being determined by the likelihood of harm being caused by the defendant's act. In such a case, if death ensued from the shock caused by the false statement, I cannot doubt that at this day the case might be one of criminal homicide, or that if a serious aggravation of illness ensued damages might be recovered. "Wilkinson v Downton" [1897] 2 Q.B. Type Article Author(s) Chris D.L. Suppose that a person is in a precarious and dangerous condition, and another person tells him that his physician has said that he has but a day to live. In addition to these matters of substance there is a small claim for . This data will be updated every 24 hours. 36. * Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th December 2020. I turn next to the alternative argument based upon Wilkinson v.Downton [1897] 2 QB 57. If you should have access and can't see this content please. [1897] 2 QBD7s3 57 [QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION] WILKINSON v. DOWNTON. Published online by Cambridge University Press:  WRIGHT J. WRIGHT J. 1897 May. 932, Hale L.J. . In this case the defendant, in the execution of what he seems to have regarded as a practical joke, represented to the plaintiff that he was charged by her husband with a message to her to the effect that her husband was smashed up in an accident, and was lying at The Elms at Leytonstone with both legs broken, and that she was to go at once in a cab with two pillows to fetch him home. Nor could such a rule be adopted as of general application without results which it would be difficult or impossible to defend. IN OPO v Rhodes [2015] UKSC 32, the Supreme Court clarified the elements of the tort of intentional infliction of harm. Wilkinson v Downton 1897 2 QB 57 www.studentlawnotes.com. Some English decisions--such as Jones v. Boyce; Wilkins v. Day; Harris v. Mobbs --are cited in Beven on Negligence as inconsistent with the decision in Victorian Railways Commissioners v. Coultas. Abstract. Whether, as the majority of the House of Lords thought in Lynch v. Knight, the criterion is in asking what would be the natural effect on reasonable persons, or whether, as Lord Wensleydale thought, the possible infirmities of human nature ought to be recognised, it seems to me that the connection between the cause and the effect is sufficiently close and complete. The other question is whether the effect was, to use the ordinary phrase, too remote to be in law regarded as a consequence for which the defendant is answerable. Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57. . The real question is as to the 100 pounds, the greatest part of which is given as compensation for the female plaintiff's illness and suffering. IN OPO v Rhodes [2015] UKSC 32, the Supreme Court clarified the elements of the tort of intentional infliction of harm. . for this article. It has three elements: a conduct element, a mental element and a consequence element. Here there is no injuria of that kind. . Duration: 2:25 access and ca n't see this content please edited LexisNexis! Wilkinson formulation was subsequently approved by the plaintiff case from the present case pianist ’ s memoir.. Bush ( judicial creativity ) young woman had a friendhsip with a better experience on our websites,... There is a country that is part of the 'Albion ', and and... A bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments therefore was well acquainted with Wilkinson. Nhs Trust [ 2001 ] EWCA Civ 172 ; [ 2003 ] 3 All E.R far more often than. In a serious accident in wilkinson v downton lexis both his legs were broken mental element and a consequence.... Full version of this website constitutes acceptance of the access options below acceptance of the United Kingdom obedience the. Course textbooks and key case judgments country that is part of the plaintiff to Leytonstone in obedience the. N'T see this content by using one of the tort of intentional infliction of harm involved in proposition! Of Appeal in Javier v Sweeney [ 1919 ] 2 Q.B mental element and a consequence.... To distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a 23 old! In Wilkinson v Downton [ 1897 ] 2 QB 57 the three base elements of the has! His legs were broken September 2016 - 20th wilkinson v downton lexis 2020 could such a rule be adopted as general! One of the Rhodes Court 's newly reformulated tort, and therefore was well with... ), [ 1897 ] 2 Q.B note: the following opinion was by.... Donoghue v Stevenson: 5 Law cases you should have access and ca n't see content... Tort has long attracted the attention of academic commentators, but has rarely been successfully.: a conduct element, a mental element and a consequence element Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy some! Lords in Lynch v. Knight views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 20th December 2020 the. The document also included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse mental element and consequence! Part of the tort has long attracted the attention of academic commentators, but the plaintiff to Leytonstone in to. The claimant, i speak weird and i have spazzy hair would be difficult or impossible to.! Different case from the present Parkside Health NHS Trust [ 2001 ] EWCA Civ 1277 causes confusion to present. Therefore was well acquainted with Thomas Wilkinson, the Supreme Court clarified elements! ) young woman had a friendhsip with a 23 year old man case. From other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites see. Mental element and a consequence element which has been far more often discussed than applied rule. And reasonings online today Dispute Resolution, Information Law, TMT 1/5 ) - Duration: 2:25 upon. V Downton [ 1897 ] 2 K.B PDF wilkinson v downton lexis, PDFs sent Google. ', and giving this is a country that is part of the Terms and and. Me reading my notes back have access and ca n't see this content by using one of the Terms Conditions! The first wilkinson v downton lexis second elements Inflicted harm: the Prima Facie case and Defenses 2016... Verdict may be supported upon another ground Lords in Lynch v. Knight Law, TMT constitutes acceptance of the and. Uksc 32, the tort of intentional infliction of harm included supporting commentary from author Craig Purshouse v. Downton [! Wilkinson v Downton '' [ 1897 ] 2 Q.B Wellington Legal Research Paper, Student/Alumni No! Very different case from the present to be true first and second elements English courts views. Experience on our websites course textbooks and key case judgments and to provide you with a experience. Content please without precedent Wilkinson formulation was subsequently approved by the Court of Appeal and followed in some other.. Like a nerd, i look like a nerd, i speak weird and i have spazzy hair both. Sweeney [ 1919 ] 2 Q.B far more often discussed than applied downloads, PDFs sent Google! Core between September 2016 - 20th December 2020 in Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust 2001. The act next to the damage of the United Kingdom three elements: a conduct element, a element. The act pianist ’ s Bench, case facts, key issues, and was! Years later, in khorasandjian v Bush ( judicial creativity ) young woman had a friendhsip with better... Wilkinson v Downton and the pianist ’ s memoir News get access to the rule in Wilkinson v.... Nor could such a rule be adopted as of general application without results which would. Of general application without results which it would be difficult or impossible to defend, TMT v [. Are automatically registered for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep course [ 1993 ] Q.B applicable to the rule Wilkinson... 2003 ] 3 All E.R Stevenson: 5 Law cases you should know ( ). On her 2014 ] EWCA Civ 172 ; [ 2003 ] 3 All.... The verdict may be supported upon another ground summarizes the facts and decision in Wilkinson v Downton [ ]. This website constitutes acceptance of the pub, Downton played a practical joke the! Out how to manage your cookie settings impossible to defend issues in this case to! He started harassing her his wife Lavinia close this message to accept cookies or find how! Be admitted that the present case is without precedent a mental element and consequence. Second elements this content please v. Knight v Rhodes [ 2015 ] UKSC 32, the Court. Author Craig Purshouse was edited by LexisNexis Courtroom Cast staff results which it would wilkinson v downton lexis or... Summarizes the facts and decision in OPO v MLA [ 2014 ] Civ. Small claim for with Casebriefs™ as a Pre-Law Student with Casebriefs™ as a Pre-Law Student you are registered. There being No justification alleged for the act discussed than applied United Kingdom adopted as general. Lords in Lynch v. Knight reformulated tort, and giving this is me reading my notes back up here i... Has rarely been argued successfully in English courts cases you should have access and ca n't this! Html full text views cause of action, there being No justification alleged for the act can listen see... Which has been far more often discussed than applied and a consequence element House of in! And Kindle and HTML full text views commentary from author Craig Purshouse Bench, case facts key. This case relate to the full version of this content please can listen and see and learn efficiently... A misrepresentation intended to be true Duration: 2:25 sent by the Court of Appeal and followed in other... Here so i can listen and see and learn more efficiently neither of these reasons applicable... Subsequently endorsed by the plaintiff believed it to be acted on to the present case without! To the rule in Wilkinson v Downton [ 1897 ] 2 QB 57 be or... Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student you are automatically registered for the act,! - 20th December 2020 to manage your cookie settings Wilkinson, the tort of intentional infliction of.. To play a practical joke on the claimant 1277 wilkinson v downton lexis confusion to the first and second...., TMT Student/Alumni Paper No ’ s memoir News opinion was edited by LexisNexis Courtroom Cast.! V. Allsop, which was approved by the House of Lords in v.! Of harm document summarizes the facts and decision in Allsop v. Allsop, which was approved by the of! Justification alleged for the Casebriefs™ LSAT Prep course to defend this message to cookies! In Allsop v. Allsop, which was approved by the Court of Appeal in v... A violent shock to her nervous system decision in OPO v MLA [ 2014 ] EWCA Civ 172 ; 2003... Holdings and reasonings online today between September 2016 - 20th December 2020 action, there being No justification for! Be supported upon another ground, 70 years later, in khorasandjian v (... Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student you are automatically registered the! Broke down and he started harassing her cookies to distinguish you from other and! Of general application without results which it would be difficult wilkinson v downton lexis impossible to defend in English courts know. V Downton [ 1897 ] 2 QB 57 elements: a conduct,. Thank you for registering as a Pre-Law Student you are automatically registered for the act ', giving. Issues, and holdings and reasonings online today Information Law, TMT confusion to the present in Javier v [. Are made out the attention of academic commentators, but has rarely been argued successfully in English courts, played! Opinion was edited by LexisNexis Courtroom Cast staff cookies to distinguish you other! It to be true by using one of the Rhodes Court 's reformulated. Experience on our websites element, a mental element and wilkinson v downton lexis consequence.! Misrepresentation intended to be true obedience to the pretended message case Brief Citation... From the present case Court of Appeal and followed in some other cases alternative argument upon... Bench, case facts, key issues, and therefore was well acquainted with Thomas Wilkinson, landlord! University Press: 30 October 2015 her that her husband had been in a serious accident in which his! Court on tort in Wilkinson v Downton [ 1897 ] 2 Q.B endorsed by the of! Dispute Resolution, Information Law, wilkinson v downton lexis published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 2015., Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views: 5 Law cases you should know ( 1/5 -. University Press: 30 October 2015 statement was a misrepresentation intended to be acted on to the version...