Using damages to punish a claimant
Law students tend to think of cases simply in terms of who won and who lost.
For those involved there is also the question of the consequences of a decision. Where a claimant is successful they will often be entitled to damages and the actual amount can vary based on a range of factors.
In this week's podcast episode we look at an important case where three different approaches are analysed:
Equity - An equitable remedy like an injunction is given a value and damages are worked out with the idea that the remedy is an asset
Tort - The parties are put back in their original position
Contract - The parties are put in the position as if the contract had been performed
The method used not only affects the actual sum but also tells us a lot about the attitude of the judge: are they exerting extra punishment on a defendant? are they trying to help a claimant get out of a difficult situation?
As you will hear in the episode, the situation in Morris-Garner v One Step (Support) Ltd [2018] UKSC 20 was altogether different.
The defendant had clearly broken an agreement and made a lot of money by doing so. The chance would have been ripe to punish them but instead the Supreme Court chose a different approach so the final ruling will hardly feel like a victory at all for the claimant.
Make sure to tune in as we discuss how this will affect future claims.
Episode link: http://uklawweekly.com/2018-uksc-20/ Subscribe on iTunes: https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/uk-law-weekly/id1137316725?mt=2
Make a difference today,
Marcus