English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

A comparative analysis of legislative protection from harassment: a view from Singapore