Not exact matches
«A defendant's
conduct can not be deemed «
unreasonable» when that
conduct has been expressly sanctioned by statute, for it is well established that,
even where «it would be a nuisance at common law,
conduct that is fully authorized by statue, ordinance or administrative regulation does not subject the actor to tort liability.
He went on to lay down a benchmark holding that «where... the quality of the
conduct said to constitute harassment is being examined... Courts are well able to recognise the boundary between
conduct which is unattractive,
even unreasonable, and
conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable.
When we discovered that it could be
conducted in a much more civilised style, with sanctions imposed mainly for
unreasonable litigation behaviour, we became
even more cheerful and unremittingly reasonable.
Courts are well able to recognise the boundary between
conduct which is unattractive,
even unreasonable, and
conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable.
If you really want to stamp out unnecessary litigation, amend the Rules to allow for
even higher costs, closer to full indemnity, and narrow judicial discretion around costs to impose mandatory costs for
unreasonable positions, inflammatory
conduct, and frivolous and vexatious behaviour.
Now, a defendant can be held liable
even where the snow or ice was in its natural condition (meaning the way it fell or froze) if his
conduct was
unreasonable.
To predicate a decision whether to permit relocation on the basis of parental
conduct only,
even when that
conduct appears
unreasonable or illegitimate, would be to ignore the needs of the child and to reduce the court's inquiry to assessing the parents» action only»).