Rhodes v OPO [2015]

Court: Supreme Court (UK)

Facts: Concert pianist James Rhodes intended to publish a memoir, Instrumental, detailing the abuse he suffered as a child and its effect on his mental health. Rhodes' ex-wife sought an injunction to prevent publication, arguing that the graphic content might cause severe emotional distress or psychological harm to their son, who has developmental disorders, including Asperger's syndrome and ADHD. The claim was brought under the tort recognised in Wilkinson v Downton [1897], which addresses intentional infliction of mental shock.

Held: The Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal’s decision, dismissing the injunction. It clarified that the tort under Wilkinson v Downton requires conduct that is unjustified, an intention to cause harm, and resulting injury or psychiatric illness. The court stressed the importance of freedom of expression, ruling that truthful statements, even if distressing, are protected. It rejected the Court of Appeal's view that recklessness could suffice; only an actual intent to cause harm could trigger the tort.

Key Judicial Statement: The Supreme Court emphasised, "Freedom to report the truth is a foundational principle, and the tort of intentional infliction of harm must be narrowly construed to prevent unwarranted interference with free speech."

💡LevelUpLaw: This case reinforced the boundaries of the Wilkinson v Downton tort while safeguarding freedom of expression, especially in matters of personal experience