INTRODUCTION The main purpose of this essay is to inform the parties about any potential tort liability and under the protection of the Harassment Act 1997, including to find out the details of the case and list the points necessary for someone to be found guilty. In Caroline and Nicole, a minor must be responsible for his own wrongs. However, the question here is whether Nicole's actions amount to battery? Battery: To file a claim, Caroline must prove that Nicole intentionally caused offensive contact with her. However, in the case (Garratt v. Dailey), Nicole may not be liable for battery because the intent element is not satisfied as she did not intend to step on Caroline's foot. On the other hand, Caroline can argue that although the incident was unknown, but Nicole's failure to remedy the situation turned it into an assault (See: Fagan v Metropolitan Police Commissioner) and Nicole did not consent because she was a minor (Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbeck Area Health Authority).SIMON AND CAROLINECould Caroline's action amount to battery?Battery:To prove the tort of battery; Simon must prove that Caroline intentionally caused offensive contact with him, that the force was direct and immediate and that the contact or touching was hostile. INTENTION: Caroline may not have intended to hit Simon with her shoe, although even if her intention was not to hit Simon with her shoe, Caroline may nevertheless have intended a harmful or offensive touch (see Scott v Shepherd). Caroline's sole action of not taking due care in throwing the shoe was predictable, as there was a possibility that if the shoe had not hit Nicole it would have hit someone (Corn V. Shepard). This is adequate to constitute intent. The f... middle of paper... uses the public telecommunications system for the purpose of creating unnecessary anxiety or causing shock to someone else. The fact that Shazza's conduct could cause physical harm or mental distress to Louis? it is likely that Louis will have an actionable claim, it is demonstrated by the fact that Shazza intended to shock Louis in an attempt to take revenge, Shazza's claim was a violent shock which might actually cause Louis harm or mental distress as a reasonable person in the same position might also suffer the same (R v Burstow). The rule in Wilkinson V Downton will provide relief for physical and psychiatric harm caused intentionally by misrepresentation. Conclusion In my opinion, if filing suit in all of the above cases would be to put the parties on notice that all claims and damages are trivial and that their money and psychic energy would be well spent on other pursuits.