普通法-案例分析筆記(更新版)
【正文】 sue the defendant .firstly,they could not sue under the traditional tort of trespass to the person in assault or :Trespass定義： could apply to acts of the defendant that interfered with the plaintiffs’ use and right of enjoyment of landApply: But some of the s, phone calls and SMS messages by mobile phone sent to the first plaintiff and to the employees of pany had been received or retrieved by them outside pany’s premises, and in the case of the first plaintiff, outside his home and outside the officeTrespass (and nuisance) could not applyHarassment定義： harassement defined as ‘a(chǎn) course of conduct by a person, whether by words or action, directly or through third parties, sufficiently repetitive in nature as would cause, and which he ought reasonably to know would cause, worry, emotional distress or annoyance to another person’ (at 464, para 31)本案中：Judge noted advances in munications technology meant that persons minded to harass no longer need to be within sight or hearing of the victim in order to achieve their object, and that mobile phones, faxes and could be harnessed towards the object of harassment, with the result that ‘life can be unbearable’AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd v Chandran s/o NatesanFact:the plaintiff was an insurance pany, it allgeged that the defendant persistently sent s and made phone calls to its employees and lawyers using vulgar and threatening language. It was those circumstances that the plaintiff sued the defendant under the tort of harassment.Result:The High court rejected the plaintiff’s contention on three grounds: the first was that the tort of harassment was not pleaded by the plaintiff ,secondly, the court doubted whether the plaintiff could sue on behalf of its employees ,thirdly, and more substantively, the court was not convinced that there was a tort of harassment in Singapore.
環(huán)評(píng)公示相關(guān)推薦
鄂ICP備17016276號(hào)-1