Defendant's lack of STD disclosure & leaked videos can lead to liability under negligence & Protection from Harassment Act.

The issue in this case is whether the defendant's lack of disclosure about an STD can make him liable under the tort of negligence to the plaintiff, and whether the defendant leaking intimate videos of the plaintiff can make him liable under the Protection from Harassment Act (2014)

Under the Spandeck framework, the factual foreseeability threshold is easily met. It is factually foreseeable that someone who knowingly carries an STD would spread it to a person they have a sexual encounter with.

The requirement of proximity is also easily met given that the plaintiff and defendant would be directly engaged in a physical intercourse. Thus, there is a prima facie duty of care.

As for policy considerations, there is a positive policy consideration to impose liability on a defendant who knowingly spread an STD to another.

As for breach and causation and remoteness, these elements are easily made out.

Therefore, the defendant can be liable under the tort of negligence. The plaintiff will be able to claim damages for the medical expenses necessary to treat the contracted STD, alongside any psychiatric injury if not too remote.

Under the Protection from Harassment Act, a plaintiff suffering harassment, alarm or distress as a result of a defendant using threatening, abusive, or insulting words, behaviour, or communication or published identity information intending to cause this exact damage may pursue a claim against the defendant.

It is very likely that the defendant, by threatening to release intimate recordings of the plaintiff, intended to cause harassment, alarm, or distress, and the intimate recordings fall under the limb of "threatening, abusive behaviour".

Thus, the defendant is liable under the Protection from Harassment Act.

The plaintiff may seek an injunction or Protection order against the plaintiff, alongside damages for the distress caused.