Vindicatory damages

Last updated

In common law legal systems, the term of art 'vindicatory damages' is a taxonomic label to describe a certain type of damages awarded by courts to individuals who have suffered a legal wrong.

Contents

Vindicatory damages are distinct from other forms of damages, as they are awarded for the primary purpose of recognizing and affirming the inherent value of legal rights held by an affected party. This may be contrasted with other forms of damages, such as compensatory damages, or punitive damages, which are awarded for a different purpose.

The concept of 'vindicatory damages' has been articulated by legal academics and practitioners as an explanation, or justification, for awards of damages in cases involving an award of damages that could not easily be rationalized by reference to principles such as compensation or deterrence. [Note 1] [1]

Jurisdictional approaches

For some jurisdictions, a 'vindicatory approach' has informed awards of damages in response to breaches of constitutional rights. This has been the case for both the Supreme Court of Canada in respect of the Canadian Charter, as well as the Constitutional Court of South Africa in respect of the South African Bill of Rights. [1]

In other jurisdictions, such as Australia and the United Kingdom; apex courts have denied the applicability of vindicatory principles in the award of damages. [1] [2] [3]

Academic commenatry

Jason Varuhas, a scholar of the common law has argued that vindicatory damages are a part of a long-standing tradition in common law legal systems; and criticized recent decisions by courts decline damage awards in some contexts as a 'deviation from orthodoxy'. [4] In his book Damages and Human Rights, he has pointed to the struggles faced by court systems when attempting to rationalize damages awarded for breaches of bills of rights, and argues for courts to adopt a vindicatory approach modeled on the rules and principles applied in tort cases where basic rights are violated. [5]

Notes

  1. The Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Ramanoop 2005 2 WLR 1324, articulated a 'vindicatory approach' for the purpose of rationalizing the constitutional damages formulation by Lord Diplock in Maharaj v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (No 2) 1979 AC 385.

Related Research Articles

At common law, damages are a remedy in the form of a monetary award to be paid to a claimant as compensation for loss or injury. To warrant the award, the claimant must show that a breach of duty has caused foreseeable loss. To be recognised at law, the loss must involve damage to property, or mental or physical injury; pure economic loss is rarely recognised for the award of damages.

A tort is a civil wrong that causes a claimant to suffer loss or harm, resulting in legal liability for the person who commits the tortious act. Tort law can be contrasted with criminal law, which deals with criminal wrongs that are punishable by the state. While criminal law aims to punish individuals who commit crimes, tort law aims to compensate individuals who suffer harm as a result of the actions of others. Some wrongful acts, such as assault and battery, can result in both a civil lawsuit and a criminal prosecution in countries where the civil and criminal legal systems are separate. Tort law may also be contrasted with contract law, which provides civil remedies after breach of a duty that arises from a contract. Obligations in both tort and criminal law are more fundamental and are imposed regardless of whether the parties have a contract.

Punitive damages, or exemplary damages, are damages assessed in order to punish the defendant for outrageous conduct and/or to reform or deter the defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Although the purpose of punitive damages is not to compensate the plaintiff, the plaintiff will receive all or some of the punitive damages in award.

Delict is a term in civil and mixed law jurisdictions whose exact meaning varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction but is always centered on the notion of wrongful conduct.

In Canadian and New Zealand law, fundamental justice is the fairness underlying the administration of justice and its operation. The principles of fundamental justice are specific legal principles that command "significant societal consensus" as "fundamental to the way in which the legal system ought fairly to operate", per R v Malmo-Levine. These principles may stipulate basic procedural rights afforded to anyone facing an adjudicative process or procedure that affects fundamental rights and freedoms, and certain substantive standards related to the rule of law that regulate the actions of the state.

A legal remedy, also referred to as judicial relief or a judicial remedy, is the means with which a court of law, usually in the exercise of civil law jurisdiction, enforces a right, imposes a penalty, or makes another court order to impose its will in order to compensate for the harm of a wrongful act inflicted upon an individual.

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional provision that protects an individual's autonomy and personal legal rights from actions of the government in Canada. There are three types of protection within the section: the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Denials of these rights are constitutional only if the denials do not breach what is referred to as fundamental justice.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Caribbean Court of Justice</span> Judicial institution of the Caribbean Community

The Caribbean Court of Justice is the judicial institution of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Established in 2005, it is based in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago.

Canadian constitutional law is the area of Canadian law relating to the interpretation and application of the Constitution of Canada by the courts. All laws of Canada, both provincial and federal, must conform to the Constitution and any laws inconsistent with the Constitution have no force or effect.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990</span> New Zealand statute

The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 is a statute of the Parliament of New Zealand part of New Zealand's uncodified constitution that sets out the rights and fundamental freedoms of anyone subject to New Zealand law as a bill of rights, and imposes a legal requirement on the attorney-general to provide a report to parliament whenever a bill is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights.

Anand Ramlogan is a member of the Bar of Trinidad and Tobago, England & Wales and the British Virgin Islands. He is the founder and head of Freedom Law Chambers which is based in the city of San Fernando, Trinidad. He served as junior counsel to the late Sir Fenton Ramsahoye QC in whose footsteps he followed to become the Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago during the period 28 May 2010 – 2 February 2015. As Attorney General, he was also the titular head of the bar.

A contract is an agreement that specifies certain legally enforceable rights and obligations pertaining to two or more parties. A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to transfer any of those at a future date, and the activities and intentions of the parties entering into a contract may be referred to as contracting. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or equitable remedies such as specific performance or rescission. A binding agreement between actors in international law is known as a treaty.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judiciary of Barbados</span>

The Judiciary of Barbados is an independent branch of the Barbadian government, subject only to the Barbadian Constitution. It is headed by the Chief Justice of Barbados. Barbados is a common law jurisdiction, in which precedents from English law and British Commonwealth tradition may be taken into account.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Remedies in Singapore constitutional law</span>

The remedies available in a Singapore constitutional claim are the prerogative orders – quashing, prohibiting and mandatory orders, and the order for review of detention – and the declaration. As the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore is the supreme law of Singapore, the High Court can hold any law enacted by Parliament, subsidiary legislation issued by a minister, or rules derived from the common law, as well as acts and decisions of public authorities, that are inconsistent with the Constitution to be void. Mandatory orders have the effect of directing authorities to take certain actions, prohibiting orders forbid them from acting, and quashing orders invalidate their acts or decisions. An order for review of detention is sought to direct a party responsible for detaining a person to produce the detainee before the High Court so that the legality of the detention can be established.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tort law in India</span> Aspect of Indian law

Tort law in India is primarily governed by judicial precedent as in other common law jurisdictions, supplemented by statutes governing damages, civil procedure, and codifying common law torts. As in other common law jurisdictions, a tort is breach of a non-contractual duty which has caused damage to the plaintiff giving rise to a civil cause of action and for which remedy is available. If a remedy does not exist, a tort has not been committed since the rationale of tort law is to provide a remedy to the person who has been wronged.

South African family law is concerned with those legal rules in South Africa which pertain to familial relationships. It may be defined as "that subdivision of material private law which researches, describes and regulates the origin, contents and dissolution of all legal relationships between: (i) husband and wife ; (ii) parents, guardians and children; and (iii) relatives related through blood and affinity."

"As far as family law is concerned, we in South Africa have it all. We have every kind of family; extended families, nuclear families, one-parent families, same-sex families, and in relation to each one of these there are controversy, difficulties and cases coming before the courts or due to come before the courts. This is the result of ancient history and recent history [...]. Our families are suffused with history, as family law is suffused with history, culture, belief and personality. For researchers it's a paradise, for judges a purgatory."

Afrox Healthcare Ltd v Strydom, an important case in South African contract law, was heard in the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) on May 13, 2002, with judgment handed down on May 31.

In law, South African constitutional litigation is the area dealing with the rules and principles concerning constitutional matters in the country of South Africa. It includes the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the High Court of South Africa, the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa, and certain other specialist courts. It also includes the consideration of rules peculiar to these courts that are relevant to constitutional litigation, such as the admission of an amicus curiae, the duty to raise a constitutional matter as early as possible in proceedings, and the duty to join the relevant organ of state in a case involving a constitutional issue.

Jason Jones is a gay LGBTQI+ activist from Trinidad and Tobago who successfully challenged the constitutionality of Sections 13 and 16 of the Sexual Offenses Act prohibiting consensual adult intercourse per anum and sexual acts between consenting same-sex adults. In a landmark judgment in the English-speaking Caribbean, Justice Devindra Rampersad ruled the clauses unconstitutional and null and void.

The Principle of Legality is an important legal doctrine in Australian public law.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Okpaluba, Chuks (2012). "Vindicatory approach to the award of constitutional and public law damages: contemporary Commonwealth developments". The Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa. 45 (2): 127–157. ISSN   0010-4051. JSTOR   24027090.
  2. dls (2022-07-11). "Lumba (WL) v Secretary of State for The Home Department: SC 23 Mar 2011". swarb.co.uk. Retrieved 2023-05-05.
  3. Lewis v ACT [2020] HCA 26 at para. 2 (Kiefel & Keane), para. 22 (Gageler), para. 51 (Gordon), para. 153 (Edelman)
  4. "Varuhas, Jason NE --- "Lewis v Australian Capital Territory: Valuing Freedom" [2020] SydLawRw 6; (2020) 42(1) Sydney Law Review 123". classic.austlii.edu.au. Retrieved 2023-05-05.
  5. Unknown (2018-01-16). "Damages and Human Rights". Melbourne Law School. Retrieved 2023-05-05.