Janvier v Sweeney [1919] 2 KB 316
False statements – Psychiatric harm – Remoteness
Facts
Janvier (J) was a maid servant. Sweeny (S) and another man (D) were private detectives who wished to see certain letters which they believed J had access to. S instructed D to induce J to show him the letters in return for remuneration. D used false statements and threats against J which caused J to fall seriously ill from a nervous shock. J raised an action against S and D for damages for the injury suffered as a result of the false statements. On the basis of Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57 the trial judge awarded J damages, both detectives being liable as D was acting in the scope of his employment by S. S and D appealed.
Issues
S and D claimed that the false words and threats spoken by D were not actionable, and the illness which followed the words was too remote a consequence from the words spoken.
Decision/Outcome
Wilkinson v. Downtonwas upheld, as the false words and threats calculated to cause, with knowledge that they are likely to cause, and actually causing physical injury to the person to whom they are uttered are actionable. Indeed, Duke L.J. found the present case to be more serious than Wilkinson v. Downton which ‘merely’ involved a practical joke, and in the present case the intention of the false statements was to terrify J for the purpose of unlawfully gaining information from her. The appeal was dismissed.
Updated 19 March 2026
This case brief remains accurate. Janvier v Sweeney [1919] 2 KB 316 is correctly summarised, and its reliance on Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57 as authority for the tort of intentionally causing physical or psychiatric harm by false statements or threats remains good law.
Readers should be aware, however, that the legal framework around this area has developed significantly since 1919. In particular, the Supreme Court in Rhodes v OPO [2015] UKSC 32 revisited and refined the elements of the Wilkinson v Downton tort, clarifying that the tort has three elements: (1) a positive act by the defendant; (2) calculated to cause physical harm or recognised psychiatric illness; and (3) actually causing such harm. The Court also confirmed that the intention required is an intention to cause the relevant type of harm, not merely to cause distress. These refinements do not undermine the outcome in Janvier v Sweeney but students should read this case alongside Rhodes v OPO for the current statement of the law. Additionally, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 now provides an alternative statutory route in many situations involving threats or distressing conduct, and may be more relevant in modern practice than the common law tort.
