英语论文网

”. [64] For example in Hartman “ the court of appeal here reversed the decision of the lower court in 2 of the 6 cases may reflect the differences in judicial opinion as to what is foreseeable ”. [65] This problem makes it difficult to predict what the outcome of a particular case might be.

In relation to proposition 2 it has been argued that “ the Hatton propositions encourage employers to remain ignorant of the psychology of work , lest they be taken to have sufficient knowledge to make them liable because they should have foreseen the consequences”. [66] In relation to proposition 7 it has been argued that “ it fails to take account of the commercial reality of the situation in that many employees may be afraid to speak out because they fear losing their jobs or missing out on promotion prospects”. [67] 

Despite the criticism above , the advantages of the Sutherland propositions and the subsequent developments of them in the recent case law outweigh the disadvantages. Therefore in my view Sutherland and the interpretation of the propositions in the recent case law represents a ‘ satisfactory development in relation to the law on the liability of stress’.

The decision in Sutherland effectively ‘closes the floodgates’ ‘opened’ by Walker , however , these floodgates have been opened by case of Majrowski. Therefore I will argue that this is a unsatisfactory development with regards to the law on the liability of stress.
本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。