An Overview of Damages and its Nature Essay

In a legal sense. amendss are a amount or award of money made by the tribunals and imposed by jurisprudence for a breach of some responsibility or misdemeanor of some right. [ 1 ] During the early period of development of common jurisprudence. the issues of amendss were the duty of the jurymans and therefore a ‘jury question’ as Judgess would reassign them to the jurymans ( Tilbury. 2003 ) . [ 2 ] Harmonizing to Sir Edward Coke and Joseph Sayer. every bit early as in the 17Thursdaycentury. the term is understood as a ‘recompense for the hurt or incorrect that the suspect has done to the complainant. ’ [ 3 ] Sir William Blackstone defines it as ‘that which is given to a adult male by a jury. as a compensation and satisfaction for some hurt sustained. ’ [ 4 ]

The verification of the construct of amendss as compensation was made in two prima instances. i. e. Livingstone V Rawyards Coal Co. [ 5 ] and Robinson v Harman [ 6 ] where the Court ruled that in civil wrong or in breach of contract instances. amendss serve as compensation to the injured party with the terminal of reconstructing him to his old place before the contract had been performed or before the happening of the hurt.

The construct of amendss evolved and with the recent Hagiographas. there is a move to return to the broader construct of non restricting it to monetary compensation for a incorrect which is either civil wrong or a misdemeanor of the footings of a contract but of all pecuniary benefits awarded by ground of wrongs irrespective of the intent or jurisdictional beginning. [ 7 ] This theory involves ‘fusion fallacy’ which proposes amendss to be awarded without respect to jurisdictional principles based on institutional separation of jurisprudence and equity. ‘Fusion fallacy’ refers to the infliction of amendss for breach of fiducial responsibility which is non antecedently awardable either at jurisprudence or equity or the alteration in principles in one jurisdictional country and its application and replacing into another country. [ 8 ] Under Australian jurisprudence. merger false beliefs are seldom allowed. [ 9 ]

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Classs of Damagess

Finding a stiff categorization of amendss based on intent is non an easy undertaking sing that the punitory component can besides be present in compensatory amendss. [ 10 ] By and big. amendss are considered as by and large compensatory and hence. monetary redress is awarded based on the hurt or loss sustained by the complainant. instead than based on the unfair act of the suspect ( LRC. 1998 ) . [ 11 ] In a long line of instances. tribunals have provided for the award of non-compensatory amendss. The non-compensatory amendss are punitory or exemplary/punitive/vindictive. aggravated. restitutionary. [ 12 ] The classification of these amendss under civil jurisprudence which is strictly compensatory. is viewed as unstable and anomalous. [ 13 ]

The non-compensatory amendss have both the features of civil and condemnable jurisprudence. For case. the footing and nature of model amendss is needfully for penalty and which is a map of condemnable jurisprudence. A better reading would be that the punitory nature should be allowed to co-exist with the compensatory nature of the amendss.

Compensatory amendss may penalize even if it is non its intent or nonsubjective so as with punitory amendss which may compensate. The classification of amendss into compensatory and punitive may bloat amendss with a compensatory sum and an added mulct [ 14 ] or it may be seen as good sing that a dislocation of the amendss into classs will accordingly ensue in definite sums with clear bases.

Aggravated amendss are extra compensation for the hurt to the involvements of the complainant. It is awarded based on the loss of the complainant ‘has been caused or exacerbated by the exceeding behavior of the suspect. ’ [ 15 ] In England. these are used as model amendss. Exemplary or punitory amendss are awarded as hindrance. punitory or retributory.

It is imposed to ‘show disapproval. disapprobation or denouncement of defendant’s Byzantine Acts of the Apostless and to penalize him for his vengefulness or maliciousness or when he has acted with “contumelious disregard” of plaintiff’s rights [ 16 ] Restitutionary amendss are non compensatory amendss but it is similar to model amendss. Albeit. their intent is non punish. they are imposed to take from the suspect whatever net incomes of benefits he derived from the complainant out of

his unlawful Acts of the Apostless. This is based on the rule that the suspect is non allowed to unjustly enrich himself at the disbursal of the complainant through Acts of the Apostless affecting harm to belongings involvements. [ 17 ]

Punitive/Exemplary Damagess

There is obscureness in the historical development of model amendss in the English common jurisprudence system. The first noteworthy award of these amendss was in the 18th century. Its development in the early Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence was necessary to restrict blood feud by payment ofbotor compensation to the injured party. [ 18 ] The King thenceforth abolished thebotand replaced it with an award of amendss.

It is notable to discourse the first few instances under the English common jurisprudence. in which model amendss were awarded during the 18Thursdaycentury. In the instance of Wikes v Wood. the complainant raised the issue of trespass to his place based on a general warrant. [ 19 ] Judicial pronouncement was that model amendss were non merely for the satisfaction of the injured party but besides as a penalty for the guilty to discourage him from perpetrating the same act in the hereafter. every bit good as a jury denouncement and abhorrence of the act complained of ( LRC. 1998 ) . In the instance of Huckle v Money. the complainant was awarded model amendss for holding been detained on the strength of a nameless warrant. [ 20 ]

It is believed that the award strengthens the unsusceptibility of the jury against possible actions by the suspect under a Writ of Attaint. There was besides a pronounced demand during early common jurisprudence to present amendss for mental torment. intangible loss and humiliation sing that these were non provided for. It is farther believed that the development of model amendss was necessary to make full in the vacuity of insufficiency of the condemnable jurisprudence legal power to turn to protection from offenses against the individual as against offenses against belongings. Its development is said to be unprincipled since English tribunals made no account of the evidences for the awards. [ 21 ]

The first instances under Australian common jurisprudence in which model amendss were at issue. involved the civil wrong and the rule of vicarious liability. In the instance of Enever v. R. . [ 22 ] where the high Court of Australia that held that the claimant is non allowed to convey an action against the Government of Tasmania for the unlawful apprehension. i. e. Byzantine Acts of the Apostless of a constable under the rule of vicarious liability because there is no master-servant relationship bing between the Crown naming the constable.

The Court explained that the power to collar is granted by common jurisprudence straight to the constable and this power was non given to the municipal local organic structures or to the Government appointing said constable. [ 23 ] This may hold been altered in portion by the Commonwealth Motor Vehicles Liability Act 1959 which allows a ‘claim for amendss for decease or personal hurt to a individual caused by or originating out of the usage of an uninsured motor vehicle owned by the Commonwealth’ and the driver shall be once and for all presumed to be the agent of the Commonwealth. [ 24 ] This has the consequence of modifying the Enever philosophy insofar as constabulary officers who drive motor vehicles.

Cases When Australian Courts Award Punitive Damages

At the beginning. a treatment of the English instance of Rookes v Barnard [ 25 ] is necessary as it has contributed to the development of the jurisprudence on model amendss. The instance involved the expiration of the plaintiff in error from his contract of service after he resigned his rank from his trade brotherhood. It appeared that the brotherhood members threatened the employer of an industrial action if it did non disregard plaintiff in error from his station. The jury awarded model amendss to the plaintiff in error because of the deliberate illegal act of exercising influence over the employer.

Lord Devlin restricted awards of model amendss to three cases viz. . ’ 1 ) where there had been “oppressive. arbitrary unconstitutional action by the retainers of authorities ; ” 2 ) where the defendant’s behavior has been calculated by him to do a net income for himself which may good transcend the compensation collectible to the plaintiff” or 3 ) where model amendss are expressly authorised by legislative act. ’ [ 26 ] Furthermore. Lord Devlin fixed standards to be considered in the appraisal of the sum of model amendss to ‘1 ) the demand that the complainant be a victim of punishable behavior ; 2 that restraint should be exercised in the award of model amendss ; and 3 ) that the agencies of the parties should be taken into history. ’

The judicial pronouncement is much criticised [ 27 ] and was challenged to be overthrown in the instance of Broome v Cassell & A ; Co. [ 28 ] but was alternatively reinstated on entreaty. It is of import to emphasize that Australian tribunals reject the stenosiss enunciated in the instance of Rookes v. Barnard.

The undermentioned cases may be cited in which the tribunals awarded model amendss:

Tort

  1. a ) Defamation

The Australian tribunals rejected the Rookes pronouncement in the instance of Uren v. John Fairfax & A ; Sons. Pty Ltd. [ 29 ] ( and the related instance Australian Consolidated Paper v. Uren ) . [ 30 ] The instance involved a complainant who is a member of the Federal Parliament while the suspect is a pressman and publishing house of a newspaper. The complainant complained about the defamatory words in the publication. The High Court of Australia ruled that ‘they can use merelywhere the behavior of the suspect merits penalty. which is merely considered to be so where his behavior is wanton. as where it discloses fraud. maliciousness. force. inhuman treatment. crust or the similar. or. as it is sometimes put. where he acts in contumelious neglect of the plaintiff’s rights( underscoring supplied ) . ’ [ 31 ]

B ) Trespass to the individual In the instance of Lamb v Cotongo [ 32 ] the Court awarded model amendss for trespass to the individual in favour of the complainant who was hit by the motor vehicle of the suspect. It appeared that in the heat of an statement. complainant threw himself on the vehicle and held on the guttering of the windshield while suspect was provoked to drive fast swerving from side to side to free the complainant. Harmonizing to the Court the award of model amendss is intended as a disincentive which extends beyond the offender and the nature of his error. It further ruled that ‘the purpose or foolhardiness necessary to warrant an award of model amendss may be found in contumelious behavior which falls short of being malicious. ’

Therefore. in the instance of Fontin v Katapodis [ 33 ] the Court ruled that the being of aggravation even if it is non considered as a defense mechanism will exclude the award of model amendss. It further ruled that. ”Since the cause for bring downing model amendss is a malicious purpose on the portion of the suspect. and the sum is regulated harmonizing to the grade of incorrect. all fortunes bearing on the defendant’s purpose may be shown to the jury. to be considered by them. All fortunes which negative the being of maliciousness. or demo the maliciousness to hold been but small. may be shown to extenuate the amendss. ” [ 34 ] degree Celsius )

Copyright violation

In the instance of Milpuruirru. Marika. Payunka and the Public Trustee for the Northern Territory v. Indofurn Pty Ltd. . Bethune. King. Rylands. [ 35 ] the Court awarded model amendss for culturally based injury. The three appliers are Aboriginal creative persons and the 4th applier is the Public Trustee stand foring the five deceased Aboriginal creative persons. It is alleged that the respondents brought and sold in Australia rugs incorporating the graphicss of the appliers without a licence to the right of first publication from the proprietors. Violation of the right of first publication under Copyright Act 1968 and misdemeanor of the Trade Practices Act were established. Extra amendss were awarded which are in the nature of model or punitory amendss for the violation which ‘in portion reflect the injury suffered by appliers in their cultural environment. ’

It is notable to discourse that the cited the instance of Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd V Cheung [ 36 ] with regard to Court in presenting significant sums of model amendss there must be ‘crying violation of the right of the complainant. and it was disgraceful behavior and in entire neglect non merely of the legal rights of the complainant sing right of first publication but of his feelings and his sense of household self-respect and pride. It was an invasion into his life. deeper and graving tool than an invasion into a man’s belongings’ ( underlining supplied ) . vitamin D ) Award of punitory amendss for disablement under Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 may merely be made in concurrence with a claim for compensatory amendss

In the instance of McGrath v Geraldton Meat Pty [ 37 ] the complainant was non allowed to amend and seek merely model amendss after compensatory amendss were compromised. Mentioning the instance Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd v Marsden [ 38 ] the New South Wales Court of Appeal ruled that ‘model amendss should merely be awarded if. but merely if. the amount awarded as compensation is unequal to penalize the suspect. It was said that model amendss could non be awarded unless compensatory amendss had foremost been assessed’( underscoring supplied ) . In explicating its principle. the Court cited Broome v Cassell & A ; Co. ( 1992 ) AC 1027 [ 39 ] in which it was enunciated that model amendss is punishment and non in the nature of a compensation. Once compensatory amendss are fixed. so it is merely so that a finding of whether the instance is proper for punitory amendss is made.

  1. vitamin E ) Professional carelessness

Appellant. Mrs. A in the instance of A V Bottrill [ 40 ] ( New Zealand ) [ 2002 ] UKPC 44 made a successful claim for accident compensation against Dr. Bottrill. It was established that Bottrill committed a error in reading cervical vilifications. Thereafter. Mrs. A brought an action for model amendss.

This was dismissed by the Court. repeating its opinion in the instance of McLaren Transport Ltd v Somerville [ 41 ] to the consequence that model amendss for carelessness against the individual may be granted merely if the carelessness is so high amounting to an ‘outrageous and crying neglect for the plaintiff’s safety. meeting disapprobation and penalty. ’ Mrs. A filed an entreaty based on recent developments of similar professional carelessness incidents. The Court gave due class to this entreaty and new test.

  1. degree Fahrenheit ) Fiduciary dealingss and breach of contract

In the instance of Harris v Digital Pulse Pty Ltd. [ 42 ] the suspects were former employees of the complainant corporation. Part of their several contracts of employment required that they are non to vie with the complainant corporation. After separation from employment. they set up a company and competed with the complainant corporation in misdemeanor of their contracts and fiducial responsibility of trueness.

The Court awarded model amendss because ‘ suspects obtained net income for themselves through their improper Acts of the Apostless. the error was consciously dishonest. there was a conceived program to overthrow the suspect corporation’s concern. they were ready to embezzle confidential information. Further it ruled. ‘exemplary amendss are awarded where the defendant’s behavior is wanton. as where it discloses fraud. maliciousness. force. inhuman treatment. crust or the similar. or where the suspect acts in contumelious neglect of the plaintiff’s rights. ’

Present State of Punitive/Exemplary Damages: Satisfactory or Not?

The regulations and rules in the award to punitory amendss is said to be unprincipled and for which ground it has been an unfastened subject for treatment and reform. The followers is a treatment of the most of import remarks made on the capable affair.

The Honorable Justice Thomas [ 43 ] proposed the “basket of remedies” attack where Judgess are allowed to choose the best redress that will be applied in each instance. Harmonizing to him. ‘the justice should be able to choose the most appropriate redress to right that breach. The justice should be free to make this irrespective of the historical ironss which have hobbled the development of a realistic and antiphonal jurisprudence of redresss. ’ He farther proposed flexibleness between jurisprudence and equity.

Michael Tilbury in his paper in the Melbourne University Law Review entitled ‘Reconstructing Damages’ [ 44 ] opposes the ‘false monopoly of compensation’ bulk position which harmonizing to him is overly overstated. This position holds that amendss which are non based on compensation are anomalous and hence without footing. The right position should be those which are non in the nature of compensation are considered exceeding than bastard.

Another prevalent position is that model amendss are dependent on compensatory amendss. The right position should be. harmonizing to Tilbury. is to near model amendss as a step of recovery available in the pecuniary redresss provided for wrongs. The rejection of the Rookes pronouncement in fact uncover the move to revolutionise the construct of use of model amendss. It should therefore. be handily used as a tool and should be more widely used and availed of.

Finally. Tilbury believes that the tendency in doing unvarying regulations on which carry the hazard of suppressing the development of the jurisprudence.

Harmonizing to Justice Thomas. duties should be allowed to meld and lose their historical categorization and doctrinal character because it would be useless to retain them. “As causes of action in civil wrong. contract and equity progressively overlap and become concurrent ; the substantial duty must emerge and. holding emerged. will logically wish to command an unfastened pick of redresss. The futility of developing an integrated duty hitherto affecting. state. causes of action in civil wrong and equity. merely to curtail the redresss to those available in. state. civil wrong. is patent.

Mentions

A V Bottrill ( New Zealand ) [ 2002 ] UKPC 44 at Australian Legal Information Institute retrieved on March 30. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. bailii. org/cgi-bin/markup. cgi? doc=uk/cases/UKPC/2002/44. hypertext markup language & A ; query=title ( a % 20near % 20bottrill % 20 )

Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd V Marsden. [ 2003 ] NSWCA 186 at Australian Legal Information Institute retrieved on March 29. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au//cgi-bin/disp. pl/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2003/186. hypertext markup language? query=Amalgamated % 20Television % 20Services % 20Pty % 20Ltd % 20v % 20Marsden

Australian Consolidated Paper v. Uren. ( 1968 ) 117 CLR 185

Australian Legal Information Institute.Vicarious liability.Retrieved March 28. 2007 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/1/chap4. pdf

Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd V Cheung. 17 IPR 76. 94 ALR 478.

Birks. P. ‘Equity in the Modern Law: An Exercise in Taxonomy’ ( 1996 ) 26University of Western Australia Law Review1. 27–30

Birks. P. ‘The Law of Restitution at the End of an Epoch’ ( 1999 ) 28University of Western Australia Law Review13. 52–4.

Blackstone. W.Comments on the Laws of England( 1st erectile dysfunction. 1766 ) vol. 2. 438.

Broome V Cassell & A ; Co. ( 1992 ) AC 1027

Cassell & A ; Co. v Broome [ 1972 ] 1 All ER 801

Commonwealth Motor Vehicles Liability Act 1959.

Cornell Law School. Legal Information Institute.Damagess.Retrieved on March 26. 2007 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. jurisprudence. Cornell. edu/wex/index. php/Damages

Enever v. R. . ( 1905 ) 3 C. L. R. 969.

Fontin V Katapodis. ( 1962 ) 108 CLR 177 at Australian Legal Information Institute retrieved on March 28. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au//cgi-bin/disp. pl/au/cases/cth/HCA/1962/63. hypertext markup language? query=Fontin % 20v % 20Katapodis

Harris 5 Digital Pulse Pty Ltd [ 20003 ] NSWCA 10 at Australian Legal Information Institute retrieved on March 30. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2003/10. hypertext markup language

Lamb v. Cotogno. ( 1987 ) 164 CLR 1 F. C. 87/044 at Australian Legal Information Institute Retrieved on March 29. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au//cgi-bin/disp. pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/164clr1. hypertext markup language? query=Lamb % 20v % 20Cotogno % 20 ( 1987 )

Law Reform Commission.Consultation Paper onAggravated. Exemplary. and Restitutionary Damagess.1998. Retrieved on March 27. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. lawreform. ie/publications/data/lrc97/lrc_97. hypertext markup language

Livingstone V Rawyards Coal Co. . ( 1880 ) 5 App Cas 25. 39.

McGrath V Geraldton Meat Pty. [ 2005 ] WADC 43 at Australian Legal Information Institute retrieved on March 29. 2007 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au//cgi-bin/disp. pl/au/cases/wa/WADC/2005/43. hypertext markup language? query=punitive % 20damages % 20and % 20common % 20law % 20damages

McLaren Transport Ltd v Somerville [ 1996 ] 3 NZLR 424. 434:

Milpurrurru. Marika. Payunka and the Public Trustee for the Northern Territory v. Indofurn Pty Ltd. . Bethune. King. Rylands ( 1994 ) 54 FCR 240 ( 1994 ) 130 ALR 659. At Australian Legal Information Institute retrieved on March 28. 2007 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au//cgi-bin/disp. pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/unrep7290. hypertext markup language? query=Milpurrurru % 20v % 20Indofurn % 20Pty % 20Ltd

Robinson V Harman. ( 1848 ) 1 Ex 850. 855

Rookes V Barnard. [ 1964 ] AC 1129 and [ 1964 ] 1 All ER 367.

Sir Edward Coke.The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England( foremost published 1832. 1979 erectile dysfunction ) Vol. 2. [ 257a ]

Sayer. J.The Law of Damages( 1792 )

Tilbury. M.Reconstructing Damages.Melbourne University Law Review. 2003 ( 28 ) . Retrieved on March 27. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au//cgi-bin/disp. pl/au/journals/MULR/2003/28. hypertext markup language? query=law % 20of % 20remedies % 20and % 20damages

Uren V John Fairfax & A ; Sons Pty Ltd ( 1996 ) 117 CLR 118

[ 1 ] Cornell Law School. Legal Information Institute.Damagess.Retrieved on March 26. 2007 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. jurisprudence. Cornell. edu/wex/index. php/Damages

[ 2 ] Michael Tilbury.Reconstructing Damages.Melbourne University Law Review. 2003 ( 28 ) .

[ 3 ] See Sir Edward Coke.The First Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England( foremost published 1832. 1979 erectile dysfunction ) Vol. 2. [ 257a ] and besides Joseph Sayer.The Law of Damages( 1792 ) 1.

[ 4 ] William Blackstone.Comments on the Laws of England( 1st erectile dysfunction. 1766 ) vol. 2. 438.

[ 5 ] ( 1880 ) 5 App Cas 25. 39.

[ 6 ] ( 1848 ) 1 Ex 850. 855

[ 7 ] Peter Birks. ‘Equity in the Modern Law: An Exercise in Taxonomy’ ( 1996 ) 26University of Western Australia Law Review1. 27–30 ; Peter Birks. ‘The Law of Restitution at the End of an Epoch’ ( 1999 ) 28University of Western Australia Law Review13. 52–4.

[ 8 ] Michael Tilbury.Reconstructing Damages.Melbourne University Law Review. 2003 ( 28 ) . Retrieved on March 27. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au//cgi-bin/disp. pl/au/journals/MULR/2003/28. hypertext markup language? query=law % 20of % 20remedies % 20and % 20damages

[ 9 ] Michael Tilbury.Reconstructing Damages.Melbourne University Law Review. 2003 ( 28 ) . Retrieved on March 27. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au//cgi-bin/disp. pl/au/journals/MULR/2003/28. hypertext markup language? query=law % 20of % 20remedies % 20and % 20damages

[ 10 ] Michael Tilbury.Reconstructing Damages.Melbourne University Law Review. 2003 ( 28 ) . Retrieved on March 27. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au//cgi-bin/disp. pl/au/journals/MULR/2003/28. hypertext markup language? query=law % 20of % 20remedies % 20and % 20damages

[ 11 ] Law Reform Commission.Consultation Paper onAggravated. Exemplary. and Restitutionary Damagess.1998. Retrieved on March 27. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. lawreform. ie/publications/data/lrc97/lrc_97. hypertext markup language

[ 12 ] Law Reform Commission.Consultation Paper onAggravated. Exemplary. and Restitutionary Damagess.1998. Retrieved on March 27. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. lawreform. ie/publications/data/lrc97/lrc_97. hypertext markup language

[ 13 ] Michael Tilbury.Reconstructing Damages.Melbourne University Law Review. 2003 ( 28 ) . Retrieved on March 27. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au//cgi-bin/disp. pl/au/journals/MULR/2003/28. hypertext markup language? query=law % 20of % 20remedies % 20and % 20damages

[ 14 ] Law Reform Commission.Consultation Paper onAggravated. Exemplary. and Restitutionary Damagess.1998. Retrieved on March 27. 2007 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. lawreform. ie/publications/data/lrc97/lrc_97. hypertext markup language

[ 15 ] Uren V John Fairfax & A ; Sons Pty Ltd ( 1996 ) 117 CLR 118

[ 16 ] Law Reform Commission.Consultation Paper onAggravated. Exemplary. and Restitutionary Damagess.1998. Retrieved on March 27. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. lawreform. ie/publications/data/lrc97/lrc_97. hypertext markup language

[ 17 ] Law Reform Commission.Consultation Paper onAggravated. Exemplary. and Restitutionary Damagess.1998. Retrieved on March 27. 2007 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. lawreform. ie/publications/data/lrc97/lrc_97. hypertext markup language

[ 18 ] Law Reform Commission ( 1998 ) .A Consultation Paper on Aggravated. Exemplary and Restitutionary Damages.Retrieved on March 27. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. lawreform. ie/publications/data/lrc97/lrc_97. hypertext markup language

[ 19 ] Cited as ( 1763 ) Lofft. . in Law Reform Commission.Consultation Paper onAggravated. Exemplary. and Restitutionary Damagess.1998. Retrieved on March 27. 2007 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. lawreform. ie/publications/data/lrc97/lrc_97. hypertext markup language

[ 20 ] Cited as. ( 1763 ) 2 Wils. 205. . in Law Reform Commission.Consultation Paper onAggravated. Exemplary. and Restitutionary Damagess.1998. Retrieved on March 27. 2007 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. lawreform. ie/publications/data/lrc97/lrc_97. hypertext markup language

[ 21 ] Law Reform Commission.Consultation Paper onAggravated. Exemplary. and Restitutionary Damagess.1998. Retrieved on March 27. 2007 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. lawreform. ie/publications/data/lrc97/lrc_97. hypertext markup language. See besides ‘ Benson V Frederick ( 1766 ) 3 Burr. 1845 ; in Tullidge V Wade ( 1769 ) 3 Wils. 18 ; Emblen v Myers ( 1860 ) 6 H & A ; N 54 ; and in Bell v Midland Ry Co ( 1861 ) 10 C. B. N. S. 287. The rule of model amendss was approved in obiter pronouncement by the Court of Appeal in Whitham V Kershaw ( 1886 ) 16 QBD 613 ; in Finlay v Chirney ( 1888 ) 20 QBD 494 ; Dumbell v Roberts [ 1944 ] 1 All E R and in Butterworth v Butterworth and Englefield [ 1920 ] P. 126. Awards of model amendss were upheld by the Court of Appeal in Owen and Smith v Reo Motors ( Britain ) Ltd [ 1934 ] All ER 734 ; Loudon v Ryder [ 1953 ] 1 All E R741 ; Williams v Settle [ 1960 ] 2 All E R 806’ as cited in the Consultation Paper.

[ 22 ] . ( 1905 ) 3 C. L. R. 969.

[ 23 ] Australian Legal Information InstituteVicarious liability.Retrieved March 28. 2007 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au/au/other/alrc/publications/reports/1/chap4. pdf

[ 24 ] Section 5. Commonwealth Motor Vehicles Liability Act 1959.

[ 25 ] [ 1964 ] AC 1129 and [ 1964 ] 1 All ER 367.

[ 26 ] Rookes v. Barnard. [ 26 ] [ 1964 ] AC 1129 and [ 1964 ] 1 All ER 367. .

[ 27 ] For case. model amendss may merely be awarded if the compensatory amendss are non plenty to penalize the suspect ; or a differentiation between State authorization and any private entity.

[ 28 ] Cassell & A ; Co. v Broome [ 1972 ] 1 All ER 801

[ 29 ] Uren v. John Fairfax & A ; Sons. Pty Ltd. . ( 1968 ) 117 CLR 118

[ 30 ] Australian Consolidated Paper v. Uren. ( 1968 ) 117 CLR 185

[ 31 ] Cited besides in the instance is Mayne & A ; McGregor on Damages. 12th erectile dysfunction. ( 1961 ) . p. 196.

[ 32 ] Lamb v. Cotogno. ( 1987 ) 164 CLR 1 F. C. 87/044 at Australian Legal Information Institute Retrieved on March 29. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au//cgi-bin/disp. pl/au/cases/cth/high_ct/164clr1. hypertext markup language? query=Lamb % 20v % 20Cotogno % 20 ( 1987 )

[ 33 ] Fontin V Katapodis. ( 1962 ) 108 CLR 177 at Australian Legal Information Institute retrieved on March 28. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au//cgi-bin/disp. pl/au/cases/cth/HCA/1962/63. hypertext markup language? query=Fontin % 20v % 20Katapodis

[ 34 ] Citing s 383. Chap. Eleven of Sedgwick on Damages 8th erectile dysfunction.

[ 35 ] Milpurrurru. Marika. Payunka and the Public Trustee for the Northern Territory v. Indofurn Pty Ltd. . Bethune. King. Rylands ( 1994 ) 54 FCR 240 ( 1994 ) 130 ALR 659. At Australian Legal Information Institute retrieved on March 28. 2007 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au//cgi-bin/disp. pl/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/unrep7290. hypertext markup language? query=Milpurrurru % 20v % 20Indofurn % 20Pty % 20Ltd

[ 36 ] Autodesk Australia Pty Ltd V Cheung. 17 IPR 76. 94 ALR 478.

[ 37 ] McGrath V Geraldton Meat Pty. [ 2005 ] WADC 43 at Australian Legal Information Institute retrieved on March 29. 2007 from hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au//cgi-bin/disp. pl/au/cases/wa/WADC/2005/43. hypertext markup language? query=punitive % 20damages % 20and % 20common % 20law % 20damages

[ 38 ] Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd V Marsden. [ 2003 ] NSWCA 186 at Australian Legal Information Institute retrieved on March 29. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au//cgi-bin/disp. pl/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2003/186. hypertext markup language? query=Amalgamated % 20Television % 20Services % 20Pty % 20Ltd % 20v % 20Marsden

[ 39 ] Broome V Cassell & A ; Co. ( 1992 ) AC 1027

[ 40 ] A V Bottrill ( New Zealand ) [ 2002 ] UKPC 44 at Australian Legal Information Institute retrieved on March 30. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. bailii. org/cgi-bin/markup. cgi? doc=uk/cases/UKPC/2002/44. hypertext markup language & A ; query=title ( a % 20near % 20bottrill % 20 )

[ 41 ] McLaren Transport Ltd v Somerville [ 1996 ] 3 NZLR 424. 434:

[ 42 ] Harris V Digital Pulse Pty Ltd [ 20003 ] NSWCA 10 at Australian Legal Information Institute retrieved on March 30. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au/au/cases/nsw/NSWCA/2003/10. hypertext markup language

[ 43 ] Justice of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. in his Article delivered at the New Zealand Society’s Triennial Conference in 1999.

[ 44 ] Michael Tilbury.Reconstructing Damages.Melbourne University Law Review. 2003 ( 28 ) . Retrieved on March 27. 2007 from

hypertext transfer protocol: //www. austlii. edu. au//cgi-bin/disp. pl/au/journals/MULR/2003/28. hypertext markup language? query=law % 20of % 20remedies % 20and % 20damages

x

Hi!
I'm James!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out