Harassment

Harassment is a Delict in Scottish law, defined in the Harassment Act 1997 as A person must not pursue a course of conduct which amounts to harassment of another and (a) is intended to amount to harassment of that person; or (b) occurs in circumstances where it would appear to a reasonable person that it would amount to harassment of that person.
==Case Law==
In Marinello v Edinburgh City Council (2011) the time between events was a significant issue in the case, as the timing between the second and third event was approximately 2 years. In this case, the court held that this amount of time does not prevent a "course of conduct" being found to exist.
Majrowski v Guy's and St Thomas's NHS Trust (2006) held that an employer could be responsible for an employees harassment, however it was stated that we are all expected to put up with a little unpleasant behaviour.
In Dickie v Flexcon (2009) it was held that simple dislike is not enough to count as harassment.
In Mcann v McGurran (2002) it was held that a harassment order and an interdict are not necessarily incompatible - it is possible to be held by both at one time.
Corporations chasing for debt can be held liable for harassment. In Roberts v Bank of Scotland (2013), a bank customer who was on occasioned called 4-5 times per day (averaging once per day) took the bank to court for harassment. She was initially successful, and although the bank did appeal (saying the initial judge ignored context), the vole was held to be unjustified and threatening.
Perhaps amusingly, in Mitton v Benefield (2011) the petitioner was hit with a harassment order after it was found that his actions, and not those of the respondent, amounted to harrasment.
Category:Intentional Delicts