No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Public interest damages
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 July 2020
Abstract
This paper argues that punitive, nominal, contemptuous, vindicatory, and disgorgement damages (commonly referred to as non-compensatory damages) can be collectively analysed as public interest damages because all these awards are justified by violations of public interests in addition to violations of the claimant's rights. To the extent they are awarded in the public interest, non-compensatory damages feature a distinctively public element in private law. In contrast to compensatory damages, public interest damages are justified by ‘non-correlative wrongdoing’, ie infringements of interests which are valuable to the community rather than to the claimant. This helps us to understand how public interest damages differ from traditional damages awards and why public interest damages should be treated as an exceptional remedy. In support of these claims, the paper offers an original analytic framework of reasons that justify damages awards.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society of Legal Scholars
Footnotes
†
I am most grateful to my supervisor James Goudkamp for his many helpful suggestions and comments on earlier versions of this paper. Special thanks are also due to Kit Barker, John Bell, Karel Beran, Leo Boonzaier, Andrew Burrows, Peter Cane, Matthew Dyson, Eleni Katsampouka, Tom Kohavi, William Lucy, Ulrich Magnus, Jason Neyers, Joshua Pike, Sandy Steel, David Winterton, Benjamin C Zipursky, anonymous referees for Legal Studies, the Modern Law Review and The Cambridge Law Journal, and to participants in the Obligation Discussion Group workshop (Oxford, May 2018) and the Obligations IX Conference (Melbourne, July 2018). All mistakes are mine. This research was supported by the Czech Science Foundation (project reg no 16–22016S: ‘Legal Transactions and Legal Responsibility of Juristic Persons’); the Oxford Law Faculty Doctoral Scholarship and Travel Fund; St Edmund Hall's Graduate Travel Fund; St Edmund Hall's MCR Academic Grant; Max Planck Doctoral Scholarship.
References
1 AG v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268 at 282.
2 Similarly eg Edelman, J et al. (eds) McGregor on Damages (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 20th edn, 2017)Google Scholar para 1-008.
3 As at 23 November 2019, it was 13 UK courts’ decisions, five judgments by the Court of Justice of the EU and five opinions of AG, one decision by European Court of Human Rights, a series of UK legislations prohibiting non-compensatory damages awards in claims against air carriers, and the European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) [2007] OJ L199/40. These data were retrieved from JustisOne, Westlaw UK, Nexis UK, BAILII and EUR-Lex. Several other cases (not legislations) use the adjective ‘non-compensatory’ but merely 14 of them do so when discussing damages or compensation.
4 Above n 1, at 298.
5 Upheld in Devenish Nutrition Ltd v Sanofi-Aventis SA [2009] 3 WLR 198 at [149]; Luxe Holding Ltd v Midland Resources Holding Ltd [2010] EWHC 1908 (Ch) at [54]. Indirectly, the same understanding of the adjective ‘non-compensatory’ was adopted in Less v Hussain [2012] EWHC 3513 (QB) at [179]–[180].
6 R (Anam) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (No 2) [2012] EWHC 1770 (Admin) at [30].
7 See also Gulati v MGN Ltd [2015] EWHC 1482 (Ch) at [127] (referring to R (Lumba) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] 1 AC 245).
8 Ashley v Chief Constable of Sussex [2008] 1 AC 962 at [28].
9 SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2018] EWHC 3452 (Comm) at [213].
10 Hall v Heart of England Balloons Ltd [2010] 1 Lloyd's Rep 373 at [35]; Hook v British Airways plc [2011] 1 All ER (Comm) 1128 at [5]; Hook v British Airways plc [2012] 2 All ER (Comm) 1265 at [2]; Stott v Thomas Cook Tour Operators Ltd [2014] AC 1347 at [31].
11 A slight exception is Cane, P ‘Exceptional measure of damages: a search for principles’ in Birks, P (ed) Wrongs and Remedies in the Twenty-First Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996)Google Scholar, although this work does not address NCDs directly. Cane searches for justifying principles of exceptional measures of damages, which he understands as measures that are ‘not’ justified by correlative gain or loss. Note that he does not explore ordinary (let alone exceptional) measures of non-compensatory damages as such.
12 See eg Burrows, A ‘Reforming non-compensatory damages’ in Swadling, W et al. (eds) The Search for Principle: Essays in Honour of Lord Goff of Chieveley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999)Google Scholar; Kramer, A The Law of Contract Damages (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2014) ch 23Google Scholar; Varuhas, J Damages and Human Rights (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2016) pp 116–117Google Scholar; Edelman et al, above n 2, part 2 (who all have a separate chapter on ‘non-compensatory damages’).
13 Peel, WE and Goudkamp, J (eds) Winfield & Jolowicz on Tort (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 19th edn, 2014)Google Scholar; Kramer, above n 12; Giliker, P Tort (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 5th edn, 2014)Google Scholar; McBride, NJ and Bagshaw, R Tort Law (Harlow: Pearson, 5th edn, 2015)Google Scholar; Mulheron, R Principles of Tort Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Witting, C Street on Torts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 15th edn, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Edelman et al, above n 2.
14 Winfield, PH A Text-Book of the Law of Tort (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1937) p 151Google Scholar; Street, H The Law of Torts (London: Butterworth & Co Publishers, 1955) ch 28Google Scholar; Peel and Goudkamp, above n 13, paras 23-006–23-034; Giliker, above n 13, ch 17; Witting, above n 13, p 645.
15 McBride and Bagshaw, above n 13, p 839 ff; Edelman et al, above n 2, ch 17.
16 See R (NAB) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2011] EWHC 1191 (Admin) at [6].
17 Peel and Goudkamp, above n 13, para 23-034; Giliker, above n 13, ch 17; Kramer, above n 12, ch 23; Mulheron, above n 13, ch 11; Edelman et al, above n 2, chs 14 and 15.
18 Ashley, above n 8, at [102]. See also J Murphy ‘The nature and domain of aggravated damages’ (2010) 69 Cambridge Law Journal 353; Edelman et al, above n 2, paras 5-012–5-014.
19 cf Edelman et al, above n 2, para 16-033 (putting liquidated damages under the NCDs heading mainly because of their close connection with contractual penalties).
20 J Murphy and Sons Ltd v Beckton Energy Ltd [2016] EWHC 607 (TCC) at [6], [20].
21 Morris-Garner & Another v One Step (Support) Ltd [2018] 2 WLR 1353 at [25]–[30] per Lord Reed.
22 Ibid, at [3], [91]–[93], [95], [96]–[98], [100], [102], [106], [109], [123], [127].
23 See Edelman et al, above n 2, para 4-025 ff.
24 Campbell v Mayor, Aldermen, and Councillors of the Metropolitan Borough of Paddington [1911] 1 KB 869 at 875.
25 Spartan Steel and Alloys v Martin & Co (Contractors) [1973] QB 27.
26 Copyright Act 1911, s 7; Copyright Act 1956, s 18.
27 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, s 31(2).
28 Technomed Ltd v Bluecrest Health Screening Ltd [2017] EWHC 2142 (Ch) at [147].
29 Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129.
30 Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (in liq) [1998] AC 20 at 39.
31 eg the literature above in n 12.
32 Samuel, G ‘Should jurists take interests more seriously?’ (2017) (August) Law and Method 1Google Scholar at 21.
33 Cane, P Tort Law and Economic Interests (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991) p 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
34 ibid.
35 See Gardner, J ‘What is tort law for? Part 1. The place of corrective justice’ (2011) 30 Law and Philosophy 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, SA ‘Duties, liabilities, and damages’ (2012) 125 Harvard Law Review 1727Google Scholar; Gardner, J ‘What is tort law for? Part 2. The place of distributive justice’ in Oberdiek, J (ed) Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Torts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014)Google Scholar.
36 I borrow this distinction from Atiyah, PS and Summers, RS Form and Substance in Anglo-American Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987) p 5Google Scholar. Summers himself considered damages to be an authorised backward-looking response to legal wrongdoing: Summers, RS Form and Function in a Legal System: A General Study (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006) p 288Google Scholar.
37 See especially Stevens, R Torts and Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; cf Goudkamp, J and Murphy, J ‘The failure of universal theories of tort law’ (2015) 21(2) Legal Theory 47 at 69–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar (discussing Stevens's inability to explain the law governing punitive damages).
38 Stevens, above n 37, p 60.
39 Ibid, ch 4.
40 Ibid, p 4.
41 The distinction is inspired by Cane, above n 11.
42 eg Stevens, above n 37, ch 4; Zakrzewski, R Remedies Reclassified (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) pp 53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burrows, AS ‘Judicial remedies’ in Burrows, AS (ed) English Private Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 2013) p 1255CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
43 See Blackett and Another v Smith (1809) 103 ER 1110 at 1111; M'Iver v Henderson (1816) 105 ER 947 at 949; The Governor and Company of the Copper Miners of England v Fox (1851) 16 QB 229 at 237.
44 Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi; ParkingEye Limited v Beavis [2015] 3 WLR 1373 at [32].
45 See eg Janeček, V ‘Exemplary damages: a genuine concept?’ (2014) 6 European Journal of Legal Studies 189 at 196–203Google Scholar.
46 Weinrib, EJ ‘The juridical classification of obligations’ in Birks, P (ed) The Classification of Obligations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997) p 37Google Scholar.
47 See especially Weinrib, EJ Corrective Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) pp 9–37, 87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Weinrib, EJ The Idea of Private Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, rev edn, 2012) pp 133, 142, 226–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
48 Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs v Meier [2009] 1 WLR 2780 at [25] (emphasis added).
49 eg Stevens, above n 37, p 2.
50 Watkins v Home Office [2006] 2 AC 395.
51 Rookes, n 29 above, at 1221.
52 A Burrows ‘Reforming exemplary damages: expansion or abolition?’ in Birks, above n 11, p 156.
53 Rookes, n 29 above, at 1227–1228.
54 In English law, there is no direct evidence that punitive damages can be awarded for breach of contractual rights or for equitable wrongs. However, it is debatable whether contract law truly forbids these awards. See Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488 and the discussion in Goudkamp, J ‘Exemplary damages’ in Virgo, G and Worthington, S (eds) Commercial Remedies: Resolving Controversies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017) pp 321–329Google Scholar.
55 Rookes, n 29 above, at 1226.
56 Ibid.
57 Ibid, at 1227.
58 (1763) Lofft 1.
59 Ibid, at 498.
60 Ibid, at 499.
61 Ibid, at 490. Similarly see eg Huckle v Money (1763) 3 Wils KB 206 at 206, 207; Entick v Carrington and Others (1765) 2 Wilks KB 275 at 286, 292.
62 [2019] EWHC 2120 (Admin) at [48].
63 Ibid, at [43].
64 Ibid, at [45].
65 Rookes, n 29 above, at 1226.
66 See SJ Shapiro Legality (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2011) pp 395–396.
67 cf Nolan, D ‘Tort and public law: overlapping categories?’ (2019) 135 Law Quarterly Review 272 at 278–279Google Scholar (highlighting the public law aspect of the doctrines of exemplary damages and misfeasance in public office).
68 Human Rights Act 1998, s 8(1).
69 Ibid, s 8(3).
70 Ibid, s 8(4).
71 Cyprus v Turkey (2014) 59 EHRR 16 at [13] (footnotes omitted).
72 Rookes, n 29 above, at 1227.
73 Ibid.
74 [1997] QB 586 at 626D.
75 Rookes, n 29 above, at 1227.
76 eg Drane v Evangelou [1978] 1 WLR 455; Design Progression Ltd v Thurloe Properties Ltd [2005] 1 WLR 1.
77 2 Travel Group plc (in liq) v Cardiff City Transport Services Ltd [2012] CAT 19 at [593]–[596]; Devenish, above n 5, at [141].
78 See s 13(2) of the Act. Lord Kilbrandon doubted, though, that the expression ‘exemplary damages’ here means anything else than aggravated damages, for by virtue of s 13(6) of the statute, this only applies to Scotland, where exemplary damages are forbidden (Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd (No 1) [1972] AC 1027 at 1133).
79 Borders (UK) Ltd v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2005] EWCA Civ 197.
80 Crime and Courts Act 2013, s 34(6)(a). See also ss 34–39 of the Act.
81 High Speed Rail (London – West Midlands) Act 2017, s 51(10) and (11).
82 Art 29 of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) 1999. See also Carriage by Air Act 1961, s 1 and Sch 1B, Art 29 to this Act. See also Carriage by Air Acts (Implementation of the Montreal Convention 1999) Order 2002, SI 2002/263, Sch 1, Art 29; Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 2004, SI 2004/1899, Sch 1, Pt 2, Art 29, which all copy the text of Art 29 of the Montreal Convention 1999.
83 Joined Cases C-581/10 and C-629/10, Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG EU:C:2012:657 [2013] 1 CMLR 42, paras [20], [28]–[40].
84 cf recital (5) of the Montreal Convention 1999, which expresses ‘the need for equitable compensation based on the principle of restitution’, ie the need for correlative reasons.
85 Section 36.
86 Section 47C(1).
87 See eg Archer v Brown [1985] QB 401 at 421; AB v South West Water Services Ltd [1993] 2 WLR 507 at 527, 531; Borders, above n 79, at [17] and [23]; Devenish, above n 5, at [20], [28], and [102].
88 Owners of the Steamship Mediana v Owners of the Lightship Comet Mediana [1900] AC 113 at 116.
89 In more detail, see Edelman et al, above n 2, para 12-002.
90 Stevens, above n 37, p 84.
91 eg Goldberg, JCP and Zipursky, BC ‘Torts as wrongs’ (2010) 88 Texas Law Review 917 at 954–957Google Scholar.
92 Gardner, J ‘Torts and other wrongs’ (2011) 39 Florida State University Law Review 43 at 56–58Google Scholar.
93 Though it was a position prior to the House of Lords decision Mediana, above n 88, that had clarified this point. For the older position, according to which nominal damages meant a remedy ‘for violation of a right, in which case the law will presume damage’, see eg Embrey v Owen (1851) 6 EX 353 at 368 (citing Ashby v White (1703) 2 Ld Raym 938). The earlier position confused: (1) damages for small damage; (2) damages for damage presumed by the law; (3) damages for inappreciable loss such as personal injury or an invasion of property; and (4) damages marking the infringement of the right for the purposes of costs.
94 Burrows, A ‘Damages and rights’ in Nolan, D and Robertson, A (eds) Rights and Private Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012) p 280Google Scholar (referring to Lord Millett's obiter dicta in Cullen v Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary [2003] 1 WLR 1763 at [81]).
95 Beaumont v Greathead (1846) 2 CB 494 at 499.
96 Weir, T A Casebook on Tort (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 10th edn, 2004) p 7Google Scholar.
97 CPR 3.4(2)(b). See Shaw v Leigh Day (A Firm) [2017] EWHC 825 (QB) at [19], [36]–[38].
98 CPR 1.1.
99 [2009] EWCA Civ 1122.
100 Ibid, at [1].
101 Note that there was no tort of malicious prosecution at that time.
102 Ibid, at [71].
103 Ibid, at [67].
104 Ibid, at [71], [74], [92].
105 Ibid, at [72].
106 Some therefore believe that ‘[s]uch damages are in effect nominal damages awarded for the infringement of a right’ (Edelman et al, above n 2, para 12-009 fn 34). If that were true, then the declaratory goal of contemptuous damages would be justified by non-correlative reasons just as in the case of nominal awards.
107 R (on the application of Collin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2013] EWHC 4803 (Admin) at [68].
108 See eg Grobbelaar v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 3024.
109 Beevis v Dawson [1957] 1 QB 195 at 214.
110 Ibid, at 209.
111 [1964] 2 QB 669.
112 Ibid, at 672–73.
113 AG of Trinidad and Tobago v Ramanoop [2006] 1 AC 328 at [26] per Lord Nicholls. See also Lumba, above n 7, at [100].
114 Anam, above n 6.
115 Gulati, above n 7, at [127]; Gulati v MGN Ltd [2017] QB 149 at [19]–[20], [42], [44], and [48].
116 Lumba, above n 7, at [99].
117 See eg Lumba, above n 7; R (O) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] 1 WLR 1717.
118 Barker, K ‘Private and public: the mixed concept of vindication in torts and private law’ in Pitel, SGA et al. (eds) Tort Law: Challenging Orthodoxy (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2013) p 86Google Scholar.
119 Ibid, p 90. Similarly Stevens, R ‘Torts, rights and losses’ (2006) 122 Law Quarterly Review 565 at 568Google Scholar; Pearce, D and Halson, R ‘Damages for breach of contract: compensation, restitution and vindication’ (2008) 28 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 73 at 86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ventose, ED ‘Damages for constitutional infringements: compensation and vindication’ (2010) Commonwealth Law Bulletin 223 at 245Google Scholar; Varuhas, JNE ‘The concept of “vindication” in the law of torts: rights, interests and damages’ (2014) 34 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 253 at 290–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
120 [2018] EWHC 2599 (QB) at [68].
121 [2004] AC 309.
122 Ibid, at [8] per Lord Bingham. This majority position was expressly criticised by Lord Hope (dissenting) at [74]; cf Nolan, D ‘New forms of damage in negligence’ (2007) 70 Modern Law Review 59 at 79–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Mulligan, A ‘A vindicatory approach to tortious liability for mistakes in assisted human reproduction’ (2020) 40 Legal Studies 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
123 Varuhas, above n 12, pp 17–18.
124 Steel, S ‘False imprisonment and the fetch of hypothetical warrant’ (2011) 127 Law Quarterly Review 527 at 528Google Scholar.
125 Gulati v MGN Ltd, n 115 above, at [48].
126 Ibid, at [2].
127 [2019] EWCA Civ 350 at [4], [24], [41], [45] (Floyd LJ).
128 [2019] EWCA Civ 1599 at [52].
129 Ibid at [22] per Lord Scott.
130 Ashley, above n 8.
131 Lumba, above n 7, at [101] per Lord Dyson. Similarly, ibid, at [237] per Lord Collins.
132 Such an interpretation can be derived from, eg, Weller v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2014] EMLR 24 at [189]–[191]; Gulati v MGN Ltd, above n 7, at [128]; Gulati v MGN Ltd, above n 115, at [19]; Shaw v Kovac and Another [2017] 1 WLR 4773 at [50]–[54] and [84]; Lloyd v Google LLC, above n 120, at [68].
133 Gulati v MGN Ltd, above n 115, at [44] (emphasis added).
134 Lumba, above n 7, at [101] (emphasis added).
135 eg ibid, at [100].
136 Watkins, above n 50, at [26]. See also Shaw v Kovac and Another, above n 132, at [53] (admitting that it ‘may be debated whether actions framed in breach of privacy have possibly something of a special status in this regard’) or Edelman, J et al. (eds) McGregor on Damages (20th edn incorporating 1st supplement, Sweet & Maxwell, 2018)Google Scholar para 17-001.
137 Weller v Associated Newspapers Ltd, above n 132, at [191].
138 See eg Edelman, J Gain-Based Damages: Contract, Tort, Equity and Intellectual Property (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2002) ch 3Google Scholar; Virgo, G The Principles of the Law of Restitution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 2015) pp 4–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Edelman et al, above n 2, chs 14 and 15.
139 Edelman, n 138 above, p 86.
140 The theoretical division is contested by several scholars (eg Rotherham, C ‘The conceptual structure of restitution for wrongs’ (2007) 66 Cambridge Law Journal 172CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Giglio, F ‘Pseudo-restitutionary damages: some thoughts on the dual theory of restitution for wrongs’ (2009) 22 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 49CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Burrows, A The Law of Restitution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3rd edn, 2011) pp 633–635Google Scholar; Barnett, K Accounting for Profits for Breach of Contract: Theory and Practice (Oxford: Hart Publishing: 2012) ch 6Google Scholar; Watterson, S ‘Gain-based remedies for civil wrongs in England and Wales’ in Hondius, E and Janssen, A (eds) Disgorgement of Profits: Gain-Based Remedies throughout the World (Cham: Springer, 2015) pp 31, 42–44)Google Scholar.
141 Edelman et al, above n 2, paras 14-001–14-003. See eg Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548.
142 eg Catnic Components Ltd v Hill & Smith Ltd [1983] FSR 512; Blayney (t/a Aardvark Jewellery) v Clogau St Davids Gold Mines Ltd [2003] FSR 19; Irvine v Talksport Ltd [2003] 2 All ER 881.
143 Giglio, F ‘Restitution for wrongs: a structural analysis’ (2007) 20 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 5 at 6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Cunnington, R ‘Gain-based damages for breach of contract’ in Saidov, D and Cunnington, R (eds) Contract Damages: Domestic and International Perspectives (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2008) pp 217–219Google Scholar.
144 Kingstreet Investments Ltd v New Brunswick (Finance) [2007] 1 SCR 3 at [32].
145 Virgo, above n 138, p 6 (footnote omitted).
146 Blue Monkey Gaming Ltd v Hudson [2014] All ER (D) 222 (Ch) at [605], referring to AG v Blake, above n 1, 285. See also Blue Sky One Ltd v Mahan Air [2009] EWHC 3314 (Comm) at [320].
147 Edelman, above n 138, p 136.
148 Ibid, pp 191 and 212ff. The relevant awards are often labelled account of profits in these cases.
149 Cane, above n 11, p 321; Watterson, above n 140, p 33.
150 Blue Monkey Gaming Ltd v Hudson, above n 146, at [605].
151 Cane, above n 11, pp 322–323.
152 eg Dagan, H Unjust Enrichment: A Study of Private Law and Public Values (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997) pp 12–31Google Scholar; Rotherham, C ‘Deterrence as a justification for awarding accounts of profits’ (2012) 32 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 537 at 544–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
153 Above n 1. See also Halliwell, M ‘Profits from wrongdoing: private and public law perspectives’ (1999) 62 Modern Law Review 271 at 279–280CrossRefGoogle Scholar (arguing that AG v Blake award was justified by public interests which should be regarded as an exceptional type of reason).
154 Cane, above n 169, p 117. See also Cane, P Responsibility in Law and Morality (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2002) p 222Google Scholar.
155 [1990] 1 AC 109 at 259, 262.
156 AG v Blake, above n 1, at 285.
157 Experience Hendrix LLC v PPX Enterprises Inc [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 830 at [16].
158 AG v Observer Ltd, above n 155, at 197.
159 Devenish, above n 5, at [158] (Tuckey LJ).
160 AG v Observer Ltd, above n 155, passim.
161 Jegon v Vivian (1870–71) LR 6 Ch App 742 at 761.
162 [2009] EWHC 225 (QB) at [73].
163 Ibid, at [69].
164 Ibid, at [71].
165 Novoship (UK) Ltd v Mikhaylyuk [2015] QB 499 at [71] (further cases are listed in that paragraph).
166 AG v Blake, above n 1, at 280.
167 Novoship (UK) Ltd v Mikhaylyuk, above n 165, at [124].
168 Wall, J ‘Public wrongs and private wrongs’ (2018) 31 Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 177CrossRefGoogle Scholar at 177 (footnote omitted).
169 Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd (No 1) [1972] AC 1027 at 1114. Similarly, Thompson v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1998] QB 498 at 517; Hussain v New Taplow Paper Mills [1988] 1 AC 514 at 523; Smoker v London Fire Authority [1991] 2 AC 502 at 533.
170 cf Cane, above n 11, p 304. See also Zipursky, BC ‘A theory of punitive damages’ (2005) 84 Texas Law Review 105Google Scholar at 151 (offering a prescriptive reading of non-compensatory punitive damages).
171 Gardner, above n 92, at 53.
172 Knauer v Ministry of Justice [2016] AC 908 at [21] per Lord Neuberger and Baroness Hale.
173 See eg Dyson, M ‘Challenging the orthodoxy of crime's precedence over tort: suspending a tort claim where a crime may exist’ in Pitel, SG et al. (eds) Tort Law: Challenging Orthodoxy (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2013)Google Scholar.
174 Above n 128.