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.
manner. As shall be seen below, it is not entirely clear how the recovery of<br />
exemplary damages can be analysed as recovery pursuant to the undertaking - at<br />
least as that undertaking is conventionally viewed. 369<br />
But in any case, undertakings<br />
in damages were not mentioned in Rookes v Barnard, <strong>and</strong> it would appear that the<br />
suggestions made in the two modern cases cannot st<strong>and</strong> in the light of AB v South<br />
West Water Services Ltd. 370<br />
1.112 <strong>Exemplary</strong> damages are clearly unavailable in a claim for breach of contract. The<br />
leading authority is Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd. 371<br />
In that case the House of Lords<br />
refused to award any damages - including mental distress damages let alone<br />
exemplary damages - for the harsh <strong>and</strong> humiliating manner of the plaintiff’s<br />
wrongful dismissal.<br />
(3) Additional factors which limit the availability of exemplary<br />
damages<br />
1.113 In addition to the cause of action <strong>and</strong> categories tests, the jury or judge retains an<br />
overriding discretion to refuse to award exemplary damages. 372<br />
Thus, even if the<br />
plaintiff can show that the case falls within one of Lord Devlin’s three categories<br />
<strong>and</strong> that the wrong in question satisfies the cause of action test, it is still open for<br />
the court or jury to decide in its discretion that exemplary damages are<br />
inappropriate. 373<br />
The exercise of this discretion in the case law has led to the<br />
identification of a number of factors which further limit the availability of<br />
exemplary damages; several of these factors may, alternatively, be relevant to the<br />
assessment of such awards. 374<br />
1.114 These factors are:<br />
• the ‘if, but only if’ test<br />
• the plaintiff must be the ‘victim of the punishable behaviour’<br />
• the defendant has already been punished by a criminal or other sanction<br />
• the existence of multiple plaintiffs<br />
• the plaintiff’s conduct<br />
369 See paras 5.74-5.77 below.<br />
370 [1993] QB 507.<br />
371 [1909] AC 488. Addis remains good law on this point, notwithst<strong>and</strong>ing that it has been<br />
disapproved in relation to its denial of damages for injury to reputation by the House of<br />
Lords in Mahmud v BCCI [1997] 3 WLR 95. See also Perera v V<strong>and</strong>iyar [1953] 1 WLR 672<br />
<strong>and</strong> Kenny v Preen [1963] 1 QB 499.<br />
372 Indeed, according to Lord Hailsham in Broome v Cassell [1972] AC 1027, 1060B, a punitive<br />
award, if it is ever permissible, must always be discretionary.<br />
373 See, for example, AB v South West Water Services Ltd [1993] QB 527B-E, 528E-F, 533F, in<br />
which the Court of Appeal identified two further grounds for striking out the plaintiffs’<br />
claims (in addition to failure to satisfy the cause of action test <strong>and</strong>/or the categories test).<br />
The grounds are discussed at paras 4.37-4.43 <strong>and</strong> 4.47 below.<br />
374 See paras 4.56-4.85, <strong>and</strong> in particular, 4.81-4.83, 4.84 <strong>and</strong> 4.85, below.<br />
63