Wilson v Pringle [1986] 2 All ER 440

Battery is intentional, unlawful physical contact with another person without their consent.

• This contact can be direct or indirect and doesn't require an intent to harm—only an intent to touch.

• If the contact results in injury, the person who committed battery may owe compensation for medical expenses, pain, suffering, and other damages.

• An intended act of touching causing injury constitutes battery.

  • Here, intent means the act of touching, not necessarily the intent to injure.

  • Even if the outcome wasn't intended, if the initial contact was deliberate and unauthorized, it's considered battery. 

Determining if an act is a battery involves proving intentional contact without consent. It doesn’t matter if there was no intent to harm—the key is that the contact was deliberate and unauthorized. 

In battery cases, it's not necessary to prove that the defendant intended to injure or had hostile intent.

• The aspect is the intent to make contact without consent.

• Even if there's no desire to cause harm, it can still be a battery if the contact was intended. 

Peter Wilson(a minor, by his mother and next friend, June Wilson) (“Plaintiff”) and Ian Pringle ( A minor, by Gordon Gatley Pringle, his father and guardian ad litem) (“Defendant”), both 13-year-old classmates, were involved in an incident at school.

• The Plaintiff suffered a serious injury, claiming the Defendant intentionally jumped on him, leading to his injuries.

• He filed a claim for damages, alleging trespass to the person (battery).

Defendant denied liability, stating that he had merely pulled the Plaintiff's schoolbag off his shoulder during playful horseplay, which caused him to fall and get hurt.

The Plaintiff sought summary judgment under the Rule of the Supreme Court (R.S.C.), Order 14.

• The district registrar dismissed the Plaintiff's application for summary judgment, but a judge reversed this decision on appeal, ruling in favor of the Plaintiff.

• The judge concluded that the Defendant's action amounted to unjustified trespass, thus constituting battery.

The Defendant appealed against this ruling, challenging whether the summary judgment was appropriate and if his action could indeed be considered battery given the context of schoolboy horseplay.

The court allowed the appeal, establishing that battery was the intentional and hostile touching or contact between individuals, without needing to prove that the assailant intended to cause injury.

• Whether the contact was hostile became a question of fact for the jury or judge to determine.

• Since the defendant had not admitted hostility, the lower court's decision to grant judgment to the plaintiff was incorrect.

• The defendant should have been allowed to defend the case.

The court noted that in battery cases where the contact didn't inherently indicate hostility, the plaintiff had to prove facts suggesting it.

• In a crowded world, some level of non-hostile or unintended physical contact was inevitable, and negligence had to be shown for a claim to succeed.

• Without proof of hostility or negligence, a plaintiff might not have had a claim.

The decision by Judge Wilson Mellor Q.C., sitting as a judge of the Queen's Bench Division, was reversed, allowing the defendant to defend the case.

The case clarifies that battery entails intentional, unauthorized physical contact, regardless of intent to harm.

In the case involving two 13-year-old classmates, Plaintiff claimed battery when Defendant allegedly caused injury during horseplay. 

• The Plaintiff sought summary judgment, but the Defendant's appeal succeeded.

• The court ruled that determining battery required proof of intentional and hostile touching, not just unauthorized contact.

• Hostility was deemed a question of fact, necessitating further examination. 

The judgment highlights the importance of context and evidence of hostility or negligence in battery claims, emphasizing fairness in legal assessments.

Plaintiff and Defendant, schoolchildren, were engaged in horseplay at school as a result of which Plaintiff fell and was injured.

CA found for Defendant, saying that battery was an intentional and hostile touching of, or contact with, one person by another and an intention to injure the other was not an essential element of the tort; that whether a touching or contact was hostile was a question of fact for the tribunal of fact, and that, since the defendant had not admitted that his act had been hostile, he was not liable.

Hostility is a question of fact for the judge.