Sentences with phrase «plaintiff without justification»

Not exact matches

Plaintiff states again that 2nd Defendant has not said a word against this marauding show of power without any legal justification by the 1st Defendant's request of a deposit of filing fees for the 2016 Presidential and Parliamentary Elections thereby embolden 1st Defendant in perpetuating these obvious illegalities against the political parties and individual candidates in this 2016 general elections.

(2) The defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiffs private affairs or concerns; and

the defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff's private affairs or concerns;

Factors include outrageous conduct for a lengthy period of time without any rational justification, the defendant's awareness of the hardship it knew it was inflicting, whether the misconduct was planned and deliberate, the intent and motive of the defendant, whether the defendant concealed or attempted to cover up its misconduct, whether the defendant profited from its misconduct, and whether the interest violated by the misconduct was known to be deeply personal to the plaintiff.

The trial judge had found that, instead of telling the plaintiff what was expected of him and giving him a reasonable opportunity to respond to the criticisms against him, the responsible Xerox manager became «more authoritarian, impatient and intolerant» and «subsequently acted impulsively and without justification.»

The defendant must have invaded the plaintiff's private affairs or concerns without lawful justification.

This formulation represents the traditional version of the tort which imposes liability upon a defendant for inducing breach by a plaintiff's promisor, such as when a defendant intentionally and without justification induces a plaintiff's employee to breach an employment contract and come to work for that defendant.

In his decision, Justice Robert Sharpe explained the limitations of the new tort: 1) the defendant's conduct must be intentional or reckless; 2) the defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff's private affairs; 3) a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation, or anguish; and 4) the plaintiff can recover damages even if there is no actual financial harm caused by the invasion of privacy, but the court capped damages at $ 20,000.

«The key features of this cause of action are, first, that the defendant's conduct must be intentional, within which I would include reckless, second that the defendant must have invaded, without lawful justification, the plaintiff's private affairs or concerns, and third, that a reasonable person would regard the invasion as highly offensive causing distress, humiliation or anguish,» Justice Robert Sharpe wrote in the ruling.»