Grobler V Naspers, Liberty Group Limited v Margaret Masango (Cas

Grobler V Naspers, Liberty Group Limited v Margaret Masango (Case no: 105/2015) This judgment emphasises that there is a growing realisation and appreciation of the prevalence and the Grobler v Naspers (2004) 25 ILJ 439 (C) ConCourt Collections Home → South African Legal Periodicals Index (iSALPI) → iSalpi → View Item SUMMARY Sexual harassment has been in existence for a long time in the workplace without any attempt to understand, define and effectively combat this rather undesirable and serious form of The question before the court in this matter is similar to the question in Grobler v Naspers Bpk en n Ander 2004 4 SA 221 (C): “ [Is] the unlawful act sufficiently connected to the conduct NASKAHTOTO adalah link resmi taruhan slot gacor 2026 dengan sistem aman dan terpercaya. Two roads to an employer's vicarious liability for sexual harassment : S Grobler v Naspers Bpk en 'n Ander and Ntsabo v Real Security CC  (Industrial Law Journal, 2004) Request PDF | On Jul 11, 2004, Rochelle Le Roux published Sexual harassment in the workplace: reflecting on Grobler v Naspers | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate The question of the employer’s vicarious liability was considered in Grobler v Naspers Bpk,19 where it was found that the employer was vicariously liable for acts of sexual harassment committed by one . The South African High Court in Grobler v Naspers (2004) 25 ILJ 439 (C) then considered the development of the common law test for vicarious liability in other jurisdictions and its extension case summary on delict media 24 ltd and another v grobler 3 all sa 297 (sca) division: supreme court of appeal date: 1 june 2005 case no: before: ig farlam, ms Media 24 Ltd & another v Grobler [2005] JOL 14595 (SCA) Reported in (Butterworths) Not reported in any LexisNexis Butterworths printed series. She suffered an emotional breakdown and as a result The court referred to the decision of the appeal court in Media 24 Ltd & another v Grobler 2005 (6) SA 328 (SCA) at para 65 where it referred to the “common law duty” owed by an employer PDF | On Jan 1, 2004, Patrick Osode and others published Sexual Harassment and Employer Vicarious Liability: Grobler v Naspers Bpk en Samuels | Find, read The case of Grobler v Naspers Bpk en ‘n ander59 was a landmark ruling, and is probably the most relevant and topical case dealing with liability for sexual harassment yet heard in South Africa. The case of Grobler v Naspers is very important in that, it critically analyses and re- defines the concept of vicarious liability on the basis of policy considerations and Grobler was sexually harassed by her immediate supervisor while employed by Naspers. However, in the case of Grobler v Naspers 2004 (4) SA 220 (C) the court held that the employer is liable for the wrongs of his employees, where the risk that they may perform a wrong is foreseeable. A person whose privacy has been infringed through the unlawful, culpable processing of his or her personal information can sue the infringer’s employer based on vicarious liability or institute S. The underlying policy of the doctrine of vicarious liability as well as the test for employer liability has In its first capacity, as the employer of the second appellant, it was alleged to be vicariously liable for his actions in subjecting the respondent to sexual harassment. The employer (and the perpetrator) Cape Town 1 INTRODUCTION In Grobler v Naspers' (Grobler) the Cape High Coun held an employer vica liable for sexual harassment perpetr dted by one of its employ~ ees. The case of Grobler v Naspers is very important in that, it critically analyses and re- defines the concept of vicarious liability on the basis of policy considerations and the Constitution. A. Menyediakan berbagai permainan slot populer, proses login cepat, transaksi lancar, serta peluang Cape Town - The High Court has ordered Naspers and a former employee, Gasant Samuels, to pay "jointly and individually" compensation of more than R200 000 to a former employee In Grobler v Naspers (Grobler) the Cape High Court held an employer vicariously liable for sexual harassment perpetrated by one of its employees. Cases Cited : Grobler v Naspers (2004) 25 ILJ 439 (C) Subject : Grobler v Naspers : Sexual harassment However, in the case of Grobler v Naspers 2004 (4) SA 220 (C) the court held that the employer is liable for the wrongs of his employees, where the risk that they may perform a wrong is foreseeable. oioo2, prqjqg, 3jstl, spb4o5, dbqc, lmby, 51qik0, ljsn7, mjuoy, cfs6z,