## Facts

- _Wilson v Pringle_ [1987] QB 237 was decided by the Court of Appeal and concerns the tort of trespass to the person, specifically battery.
- The claimant, Pringle, alleged that the defendant committed battery by intentionally jumping on him.
- The defendant stated he had pulled Pringle’s schoolbag off his shoulder as part of horseplay, after which Pringle fell and sustained injuries.
- At first instance, the judge found in favour of the claimant.
- The Court of Appeal overturned this decision, analysing whether the required elements of intent and hostility were present.
- The Court found that the action, while intentional, did not amount to hostile contact in law.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendant’s intentional contact with the claimant constituted a battery in tort law.
2. Whether the act of pulling a schoolbag during horseplay amounted to ‘hostile’ contact as required for battery.
3. What the proper legal definition of 'hostility' is within the context of battery in tort law.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that, although there was intentional contact, the defendant’s action did not satisfy the requirement of hostility in battery for tort law.
- The action of pulling the schoolbag during horseplay was not deemed hostile contact under the legal standard.
- The judge’s original decision in favour of the claimant was overturned.

## Legal Principles

- Battery in tort requires two elements: intentional touching or contact by the defendant, and that such contact must be hostile.
- Hostile contact does not require ill-will or malevolence but refers to contact outside the accepted norms of ordinary daily interactions.
- The tortious definition of battery differs from that in criminal law; tort law requires both intent and hostility, whereas criminal law may focus on acceptability in daily conduct.
- Not all intentional or unwanted touching is actionable in tort; only those that are both intentional and hostile as per the defined standard.

## Conclusion

_Wilson v Pringle_ defines battery in tort as requiring both intentional and hostile contact, clarifying that 'hostile' denotes contact beyond social norms rather than malicious intent, and thereby narrows the scope for liability compared to criminal law.

Wilson v Pringle [1987] QB 237 (CA)