Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary ... - Law Commission

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(41) if it is sought to establish a matter relating to the question whether punitive damages should be awarded, or to the question of their amount, the civil, and not the criminal, standard of proof must be satisfied. (Draft Bill, clause 10) 1.232 One reason for accepting the civil standard of proof is that that standard is, in fact, an inherently flexible standard. 783 Clearer evidence will be required by the courts, in order for such standard to be satisfied, where the allegations, or the consequences of the decision for one or both of the parties, are serious. Both of these conditions will generally be satisfied by claims to punitive damages. The corollary is that defendants to such claims may be adequately protected even without the criminal standard of proof and within the ‘lower’ civil standard. Cross & Tapper on Evidence deals with the analogous case of allegations of criminal conduct in civil actions in the following way: 784 ... the person against whom criminal conduct is alleged is adequately protected by the consideration that the antecedent improbability of his guilt is ‘a part of the whole range of circumstances which have to be weighed in the scale when deciding as to the balance of probabilities’. 1.233 A second reason for accepting the civil standard is that it could be impractical for a higher burden of proof to be adopted for only one part of a civil action: all other aspects of liability (especially, for example, the commission of the wrong which founds a claim to compensatory damages) would be determined according to the ordinary civil standard; whereas just one aspect (that is, ‘deliberate and outrageous disregard of the plaintiff’s rights’) would be determined according to the criminal standard. (8) Insurance against punitive damages 1.234 In this section we mainly deal with the question whether a person should be permitted to insure against any liability to punitive damages which they may incur (personal or vicarious). In the final subsection, 785 we also deal with the rather different question of whether statutes which currently make insurance compulsory in certain circumstances require, or should be construed to require, insurance against a liability to pay punitive damages (and not just compensation) for a wrong. (a) The options for reform 1.235 We have found the issue of whether a person should be permitted to insure against a liability to punitive damages difficult to resolve, not least because consultees put forward a very wide range of opinions. A survey of the approach of other common law jurisdictions to this issue similarly reveals a considerable range of 783 See the discussion at paras 4.99-4.100 above. 784 Cross & Tapper on Evidence (8th ed, 1995) p 171. 785 See paras 5.270-5.273 below. 166
approaches. 786 132, 787 Although it was not expressed in this way in Consultation Paper No we regard the choice as one between three main options: (1) insurance against punitive damages awards is in all cases permitted by legislation; (2) there is no general legislative public policy bar on insurance, but insurance is barred in cases involving especially outrageous conduct; (3) insurance against punitive awards is in all cases barred by legislation. 1.236 On the balance of arguments of principle, policy and practicality, we reject a bar of any sort on insurance against punitive damages: that is, we favour option 1. We give the decisive reasons for our choice below. (b) The decisive reasons for preferring option 1: insurance is permitted in all cases (i) The need for plaintiffs to have a financial reason for claiming punitive damages 1.237 There is a clear public interest in punishing and deterring bad conduct of a nature which merits a punitive damages award, as well as in offering appeasement to the victims thereof. Nevertheless, it is futile to discuss the pursuit of these aims through civil litigation if plaintiffs will not claim punitive damages because the defendant cannot pay them. Plaintiffs are unlikely to claim punitive damages where defendants do not have the financial capacity to pay any substantial damages and costs which may be awarded against them. Such capacity may be afforded, however, by liability insurance. (ii) The efficacy of the pursuit of the aims of punitive damages 1.238 We do not believe that the aims of punitive damages will be either wholly or substantially frustrated by generally permitting insurance against awards. Although we recognise that any retributive and deterrent purposes of this category of damages may be diluted by our proposed approach to insurance, we do not anticipate that they will be wholly frustrated: in particular, the insurance industry, in controlling the availability and cost of such insurance, is in a position to exert significant pressure on present or potential insured parties. 1.239 Our views on this matter are supported by strong recent judicial statements. In Lamb v Cotogno 788 the High Court of Australia recognised that the purposes of punitive damages are not wholly frustrated by the availability of insurance: 786 See the discussion in Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary Damages (1993) Consultation Paper No 132, para 6.39-6.41; see also, on the approach of United States jurisdictions, inter alia, L Schlueter and K Redden, Punitive Damages (3rd ed, 1995) vol 2, § 17.0-17.2; D B Dobbs, Law of Remedies (2nd ed, 1993) § 3.11(7). 787 Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary Damages (1993) Consultation Paper No 132, paras 6.39-6.41. 788 (1987) 164 CLR 1. 167
Page 1 and 2:
THE LAW COMMISSION Item 2 of the Si
Page 3 and 4:
should emphasise at the outset that
Page 5 and 6:
practitioners and academics) consid
Page 7 and 8:
punitive damages should survive for
Page 9 and 10:
and sued, he will, at worst, be mad
Page 11 and 12:
‘exceptional’ 62 conduct or mot
Page 13 and 14:
defendant or his legal advisers per
Page 15 and 16:
an undertaking in damages which was
Page 17 and 18:
likely adversely to affect him or h
Page 19 and 20:
noting the concession by the respon
Page 21 and 22:
Kralj, which was an “excruciating
Page 23 and 24:
two of their lordships who gave jud
Page 25 and 26:
such a restriction, unless one take
Page 27 and 28:
(1) legislation should provide that
Page 29 and 30:
1.3 Historically, a number of diffe
Page 31 and 32:
nuisance 195 has also been recognis
Page 33 and 34:
day market). At first instance, Pet
Page 35 and 36:
equired to trigger an account of pr
Page 37 and 38:
disgorgement to principals of bribe
Page 39 and 40:
disgorge what he has saved by commi
Page 41 and 42:
there is no consensus among comment
Page 43 and 44:
(a) Restitutionary damages should b
Page 45 and 46:
the purposes of the claim to restit
Page 47 and 48:
account of profits and damages but
Page 49 and 50:
area. The problem of ‘election of
Page 51 and 52:
there is no such in-built limitatio
Page 53 and 54:
PART IV EXEMPLARY DAMAGES: PRESENT
Page 55 and 56:
that exemplary damages were not awa
Page 57 and 58:
1.96 These questions were recently
Page 59 and 60:
to be irrelevant to, and even incon
Page 61 and 62:
1.107 Consistently with the apparen
Page 63 and 64:
manner. As shall be seen below, it
Page 65 and 66:
1.117 Major Commonwealth jurisdicti
Page 67 and 68:
In the present case there is the fu
Page 69 and 70:
an aspect of the case which made ex
Page 71 and 72:
1.137 The ‘non-discrimination’
Page 73 and 74:
We have ... been referred to a numb
Page 75 and 76:
Thus it has been suggested that the
Page 77 and 78:
underlying such damages, that of pu
Page 79 and 80:
easons of fairness to defendants: i
Page 81 and 82:
(6) Multiple plaintiffs 1.165 Very
Page 83 and 84:
Legal Services Act 1990 and Rules o
Page 85 and 86:
MR himself suggested figures to ass
Page 87 and 88:
Thompson v MPC achieves its aims, t
Page 89 and 90:
proceeded on the basis that the doc
Page 91 and 92:
would be that to allow insurance wo
Page 93 and 94:
PART V EXEMPLARY DAMAGES: REFORM 1.
Page 95 and 96:
1.8 As regards the divide between t
Page 97 and 98:
3. THE CASE FOR AND AGAINST EXEMPLA
Page 99 and 100:
(5) The criminal approach to vicari
Page 101 and 102:
particularly unsatisfactory to rely
Page 103 and 104:
1.34 On the first interpretation an
Page 105 and 106:
4. OUR CENTRAL REFORM PROPOSALS (1)
Page 107 and 108:
when applying this principle a cour
Page 109 and 110:
indefensible position which the com
Page 111 and 112:
... the availability of exemplary d
Page 113 and 114:
But these concepts are inadequate,
Page 115 and 116: for a wrong which arises under an A
Page 117 and 118: view that such an award would be co
Page 119 and 120: the promise. To award exemplary dam
Page 121 and 122: else should, actually constitute in
Page 123 and 124: awarded as damages (including exemp
Page 125 and 126: 1.88 The first argument is that it
Page 127 and 128: (2) the relationship between (on th
Page 129 and 130: was determined, the court could mak
Page 131 and 132: (iii) A ‘last resort’ remedy (2
Page 133 and 134: A discretionary or an absolute bar
Page 135 and 136: 1.117 We have therefore recommended
Page 137 and 138: discrimination between, for example
Page 139 and 140: (24) our draft Bill should lay down
Page 141 and 142: 1.141 In our view, this is necessar
Page 143 and 144: the punitive damages award on the A
Page 145 and 146: to that remedy. 720 Yet this means
Page 147 and 148: (31) once punitive damages have bee
Page 149 and 150: e so where the defendant consents t
Page 151 and 152: 1.183 We also think that any ‘adv
Page 153 and 154: liability’) which applies to any
Page 155 and 156: (c) Implications of the adoption of
Page 157 and 158: ‘moderation’ and of ‘proporti
Page 159 and 160: conduct. 756 Although it has consis
Page 161 and 162: liable to pay a sum of money which
Page 163 and 164: 1.224 The second difference is that
Page 165: award if they succeed in persuading
Page 169 and 170: ... [c]ontracts should only be held
Page 171 and 172: (ii) The problems of defining with
Page 173 and 174: the insured wrongdoer’s inability
Page 175 and 176: award to be covered by insurance, t
Page 177 and 178: punitive damages, no enactment shal
Page 179 and 180: one case, 831 and arguably done so
Page 181 and 182: common law to hold, if necessary, t
Page 183 and 184: PART VI SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 185 and 186: (19) the ‘cause of action’ test
Page 187 and 188: damages shall be permitted for that
Page 189 and 190: MICHAEL SAYERS, Secretary 11 Septem
Page 191 and 192: Nigel Ley Harvey McGregor QC Tim Ow
Page 193 and 194: APPENDIX C Persons and organisation
Page 195 and 196: Steve Hedley John Hodgson L Hoyano
Page 197: 197
show all

Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary ... - Law Commission

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?