Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 1721
Assault – Damage – Harassment – Intention – Psychiatric harm
Facts
Minna Wong (W) was employed as a wheelchair administrator by NHS Trust. In this employment, she suffered harassment from her colleagues which resulted in physical and psychiatric harm to W. In 1995 W was successful in prosecuting M, one of the employees, for assault. In 1998 W raised an action against the trust for negligence on the basis of its vicariously liability for the torts of its employees, and against M for intentionally causing harm to W due to M’s harassment. The claim against M was unsuccessful, and W appealed.
Issue
The issues in question were (1) the scope of the tort of intentionally causing harm under the principle in Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57 that the behaviour was likely to result in harm that and could impute an intention of harm; and (2) whether there was a tort of harassment at common law before the enactment of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (1997 Act).
Held
Under the double jeopardy rule, M’s assault against W was excluded from consideration under section 45 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. As a result, all that could be considered were W's allegations that M had been rude and unfriendly, yet the tort of intentionally inflicting harm required proof of actual physical harm or psychiatric illness. Therefore, in line with Wilkinson v Downton, an intention to cause harm could not be imputed in the present case. Nor could W succeed on the second issue, as there was no tort of intentional harassment at common law before the 1997 Act. The appeal was dismissed.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case note accurately summarises the Court of Appeal’s decision in Wong v Parkside Health NHS Trust [2001] EWCA Civ 1721. The legal principles described remain good law. The rule that rudeness and unfriendliness alone cannot found a claim under the Wilkinson v Downton principle, and the confirmation that no common law tort of harassment existed prior to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, continue to be accepted propositions.
Readers should note, however, that subsequent case law has significantly refined the Wilkinson v Downton tort itself. In Rhodes v OPO [2015] UKSC 32, the Supreme Court clarified that the tort requires: (1) a wilful act; (2) calculated to cause physical harm or recognisable psychiatric illness; and (3) which does in fact cause such harm. Crucially, the Supreme Court confirmed that the mental element requires actual intention to cause harm (or subjective recklessness as to whether harm results), not merely imputed intention — bringing the tort into closer alignment with this case’s reasoning. The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 remains the primary statutory vehicle for harassment claims and has not been materially amended in ways that affect the points discussed in this article.
