Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary ... - Law Commission
Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary ... - Law Commission
Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary ... - Law Commission
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
are. 584<br />
Thus reported cases in which exemplary or punitive damages have been<br />
awarded or contemplated seem to involve rather more than ‘simple’ negligence, 585<br />
or conduct that is aggravated by the defendant’s high-h<strong>and</strong>ed behaviour. 586<br />
(ii) Why include equitable wrongs?<br />
1.54 It could be argued that a reformed law of exemplary damages should be confined to<br />
torts <strong>and</strong> should not be extended so as to include equitable wrongs. 587<br />
No English case<br />
has awarded exemplary damages for an equitable wrong, whereas such damages are<br />
available for many causes of action in tort. In contrast, authorities in major<br />
Commonwealth jurisdictions have awarded exemplary damages for equitable<br />
wrongs. 588<br />
1.55 But despite the absence of English authorities for awarding exemplary damages for<br />
an equitable wrong, we can ultimately see no reason of principle or practicality for<br />
excluding equitable wrongs from any rational statutory expansion of the law of<br />
exemplary damages. 589<br />
We consider it unsatisfactory to perpetuate the historical<br />
divide between common law <strong>and</strong> equity, unless there is very good reason to do so.<br />
Professor Waddams argues,<br />
damages will not be awarded for the tort of negligence, unless the defendant’s conduct<br />
could be said to amount to recklessness or high-h<strong>and</strong>ed conduct: S M Waddams, The <strong>Law</strong><br />
of Damages (2nd ed, 1991) para 11.210. In New Zeal<strong>and</strong>, exemplary damages have recently<br />
been held to extend to the tort of negligence: McLaren Transport v Somerville [1996] 3<br />
NZLR 424 (HC).<br />
584 See, for example: Coloca v BP Australia Ltd (1992) Aust Torts Reps 81-153 (“unusual <strong>and</strong><br />
rare”) <strong>and</strong> McClaren Transport v Somerville [1996] 3 NZLR 424 (“rare <strong>and</strong> exceptional”).<br />
585 See, for example, McClaren Transport v Somerville [1996] 3 NZLR 424 (HC).<br />
586 See, for example, Backwell v AAA (1996) Aust Torts Reps 81-387 (Vic, CA) <strong>and</strong> Trend<br />
Management Ltd v Borg (1996) 40 NSWLR 500 (NSW, CA).<br />
587 The Ontario <strong>Law</strong> Reform <strong>Commission</strong>, in its Report on <strong>Exemplary</strong> Damages (1991), was<br />
unable to agree about whether punitive damages should be available for equitable wrongs:<br />
pp 71-74 (majority); pp 74-75 (dissent by <strong>Commission</strong>er Earl A Cherniak QC). See<br />
further n 48 below.<br />
588 In Canada, it appears to be well-established that exemplary or punitive damages may be<br />
awarded for equitable wrongs, such as breach of fiduciary duty. See, in particular, Norberg v<br />
Wynrib (1992) 92 DLR (4th) 440, 505-507 (per McLachlin J) (SCC). More recent cases<br />
include McDonald Estate v Martin [1995] CCL 1142 (Man CA) <strong>and</strong> Gerula v Flores [1995]<br />
CCL 8583 (Ont CA). In New Zeal<strong>and</strong>, exemplary damages have been held to be available<br />
for breach of confidence (Aquaculture Corporation v NZ Green Mussel Co Ltd [1990] 3<br />
NZLR 299 (CA majority)) <strong>and</strong> breach of fiduciary duty (Cook v Evatt (No 2) [1992] 1<br />
NZLR 676 (HC)). The position in Australia is less clear. See, in particular, Bailey v Namol<br />
Pty Ltd (1994) 12 ALR 228, 238 (FCA, GD), doubting the availability of exemplary<br />
damages in equity, without deciding the point, <strong>and</strong> P McDermott, “<strong>Exemplary</strong> Damages in<br />
Equity” (1995) 69 ALJ 773-774. Cf eg Spry, Equitable Remedies (4th ed, 1990) p 621, <strong>and</strong><br />
M Tilbury <strong>and</strong> H Luntz (1995) 17 Loyola LA Intl & Comp LJ 769, 783-785, identifying a<br />
“trend [in Australian common law] towards the recovery of exemplary damages<br />
independently of the plaintiff’s cause of action”.<br />
589 See the Ontario <strong>Law</strong> Reform <strong>Commission</strong>, Report on <strong>Exemplary</strong> Damages (1991) pp 71-74<br />
(majority), which reached similar conclusions.<br />
110