Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary ... - Law Commission
Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary ... - Law Commission
Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary ... - Law Commission
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
company could be awarded aggravated damages, although such awards would be lower<br />
than those which a human being, who has feelings, could receive. Caulfield J reached<br />
this conclusion by concentrating on the defendant’s conduct <strong>and</strong> by not emphasising<br />
the nature of the damage to the plaintiff.<br />
(b) Which Wrongs?<br />
1.10 <strong>Aggravated</strong> damages cannot be awarded for the tort of negligence or for breach of<br />
contract. 103<br />
They have, however, been awarded for many other causes of action,<br />
including assault/battery, 104<br />
false imprisonment, 105<br />
malicious prosecution, 106<br />
defamation, 107<br />
intimidation, 108<br />
discrimination, 109<br />
<strong>and</strong> unlawful interference with business. 113<br />
103 Kralj v McGrath [1986] 1 All ER 54, 60-61.<br />
14<br />
trespass to l<strong>and</strong>, 110<br />
deceit, 111<br />
nuisance 112<br />
They have also been awarded pursuant to<br />
104 Eg Ansell v Thomas, The Times 23 May 1973; Flavius v MPC (1982) 132 NLJ 532; Ballard v<br />
MPC (1983) 133 NLJ 1133; W v Meah [1986] 1 All ER 935. See R Clayton <strong>and</strong> H<br />
Tomlinson, Civil Actions Against the Police (2nd ed, 1992) pp 396-7, <strong>and</strong> now R Clayton <strong>and</strong><br />
H Tomlinson, Police Actions (1997) Appendix 2.<br />
105 Eg White v MPC, The Times 24 April 1982; Smith v MPC [1982] CLY 899; Warby v<br />
Cascarino, The Times 27 October 1989; Barnes v MPC [July 1992] Legal Action 14;<br />
Thompson v MPC [1997] 3 WLR 403. See R Clayton <strong>and</strong> H Tomlinson, Civil Actions<br />
Against the Police (2nd ed, 1992) pp 400, 401, <strong>and</strong> now R Clayton <strong>and</strong> H Tomlinson, Police<br />
Actions (1997) Appendix 2.<br />
106 Eg White v MPC, The Times 24 April 1982; Marks v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester,<br />
The Times 28 January 1992; Thompson v MPC [1997] 3 WLR 403. See R Clayton <strong>and</strong> H<br />
Tomlinson, Civil Actions Against the Police (2nd ed, 1992) p 404, <strong>and</strong> now R Clayton <strong>and</strong> H<br />
Tomlinson, Police Actions (1997) Appendix 2.<br />
107 Ley v Hamilton (1935) 153 LT 384, as interpreted by Lord Devlin in Rookes v Barnard<br />
[1964] AC 1129, 1230-1231; McCarey v Associated Newspapers Ltd (No 2) [1965] 2 QB 86,<br />
107D; Broome v Cassell [1972] AC 1027. Cf AB v South West Water Services Ltd [1993] QB<br />
507, 533A, per Sir Thomas Bingham MR, referred to at para 2.33 below.<br />
108 Messenger Newspapers Group Ltd v National Graphical Association [1984] IRLR 397; Godwin<br />
v Uzoigwe [1992] TLR 300. This is implicit in Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129, 1232-<br />
1233.<br />
109 Prison Service v Johnson [1997] ICR 275 (race discrimination, contrary to the Race<br />
Relations Act 1976); Duffy v Eastern Health & Social Services Board [1992] IRLR 251<br />
(religious discrimination, contrary to the Fair Employment (Northern Irel<strong>and</strong>) Act 1976).<br />
The same principles should apply to sex discrimination contrary to the Sex Discrimination<br />
Act 1975, <strong>and</strong> to disability discrimination contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act<br />
1995: the statutory torts are in all relevant respects identical. See, in particular, Ministry of<br />
Defence v Meredith [1995] IRLR 539, 542, para 24 (availability of aggravated damages for<br />
sex <strong>and</strong> race discrimination conceded by counsel) <strong>and</strong> Prison Service v Johnson [1997] ICR<br />
275, 287D-F (EAT satisfied that aggravated damages are available in sex <strong>and</strong> race<br />
discrimination cases).<br />
110 Merest v Harvey (1814) 5 Taunt 442, 128 ER 761; Sears v Lyons (1818) 2 Stark 317, 171 ER<br />
658; Williams v Currie (1845) 1 CB 841, 135 ER 774; Emblen v Myers (1860) 6 H & N 54,<br />
158 ER 23, as interpreted by Lord Devlin in Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129, 1223,<br />
1229; Drane v Evangelou [1978] 1 WLR 455, 461H, 462E.<br />
111 Mafo v Adams [1970] 1 QB 548, 558D-E; Archer v Brown [1985] QB 401, 426D-G.<br />
112 Thompson v Hill (1870) LR 5 CP 564, which after Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 must<br />
be interpreted as a case of aggravated damages, since the defendant does not appear to have<br />
been motivated by profit.<br />
113 Messenger Newspapers Group Ltd v National Graphical Association [1984] IRLR 397. But see<br />
our comments at para 2.9 above.