Abstract
ABSTRACT Harassment continues to plague modern society. Yet, countries have not found the panacea. Some have opted for a common law tort approach, while others have sought to legislate for protection against harassment. Singapore initially tackled this issue with the former, but turned to the latter after the common law tort created by the Singapore High Court in Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Betram v Naresh Kumar Mehta was thrown into disarray by AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd v Chandran s/o Natesan. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of similar harassment legislation in the United Kingdom and New Zealand and English and Hong Kong case law. It argues that while statutory protection from harassment is preferred over a common law tort, several recommendations can be considered to calibrate the scope of harassment and provide greater clarity as to what constitutes impermissible social interaction.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
