Facts: In this case, the Supreme Court considered the scope of the exemption in s1(3)(a) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 i.e. the exemption from liability for harassment where a defendant has pursued a course of conduct for the purposes of preventing or detecting a crime. In the case, the defendant was formally exmployed by the claimant ans seemed to be very upset about the circumstances of a dismissal. The defendant had it in his mind that the claimant had been engaged in financial impropriety involving the claimant's companies. The defendant wanted this investigated, so wrote over 400 letters to the official receiver, the Department of Trade and Industry, the police, etc to look into it. The allegations were investigated but came to nothing. Nevertheless, the defendant continued to write letters. He argued that writing all these letters could not be harassment as the conduct fell within s1(3)(a)

Held: Lord Sumption held that the provision required that the provision required that the defendant subjectively believe that the crime had been comitted and that the belief be rational → so the exemption did not operate here. However, Lord Reed dissented, arguing that only a subjective belief is required; the rationality of the belief is NOT a requirement

Facts: A man, by way of practical joke, went up to a married woman and said her husband has had a serious accident and both his legs are broken. He intended her to believe it and she did believe it, causing her to suffer a violent nervous shock as a result.

Held: The court said she had a good course of action → although there is no battery or assault, he did something to cause a reaction, which caused her harm, so she was able to sue

⇒ At this time (1897), there was no recovery in tort for negligently caused psychiatric injury (Victorian Railway Commissioners v Coultas (1888). However, Wright J held that the case was covered by an intentional tort to the person i.e. the intentional infliction of harm

Facts: This case elaborates on the case of Wilkinson v Downton [1897]. In this case, an employee was bullied by colleagues and suffered a mental breakdown.

Held: The claimant did not succeed in suing because she could not prove the facts.