- Cited — MXX v A Secondary School 2023-08-25
“…n to cause at least severe mental or emotional distress; and c) the consequence element requiring physical harm or recognised psychiatric illness: Rhodes v OPO [2015] UKSC 32. The Judge described grooming behaviour as conduct that may be objectively unobjectionable but is part of a process of building a relationship for the purpose …”
- Cited — MXX v A Secondary School 2023-08-25
“…The modern restatement of the rule in Wilkinson v Downton [1897] 2 QB 57 is found in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rhodes v OPO [2015] UKSC 32. The Court identified three elements of the tort: ‘a) the conduct element requiring words or conduct directed at the claimant for which there is no justificati…”
- Cited — Griffiths v Tickle & Ors 2021-12-10
“…ain intentional infliction of harm: [2014] EWCA Civ 1277, [2015] EMLR 4. The Supreme Court allowed an appeal by the father and restored the decision of Bean J: [2015] UKSC 32, [2016] AC 219. It is not necessary to discuss the claim in negligence but some consideration of the other two claims is of value.…”
- Cited — Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter 2021-03-11
“…gulation Authority [2014] EWHC 2974 (Admin), [78] in the context of a solicitor’s breach of the Solicitors Code of Conduct and O (a child) v Rhodes and another [2015] UKSC 32, [2016] AC 219, [84] in the context of the tort of intentionally causing physical or psychological harm.…”
- Cited — FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Brownlie 2020-07-29
“…in question was not being specified in order to make it more difficult to identify the claimant. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court (Rhodes v OPO [2015] UKSC 32, [2016] AC 219)we now know that it was US law.…”
- Cited — Ali & Anor v Channel 5 Broadcasting Ltd 2019-04-16
“…[2015] UKSC 32…”