- 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 and 166: award if they succeed in persuading
- Page 167 and 168: approaches. 786 132, 787 Although i
- 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: Steve Hedley John Hodgson L Hoyano