| Resumo: | <p>This thesis is about non-compensatory damages (NCD) which include the awards of exemplary, nominal, contemptuous, vindicatory, and disgorgement damages. In contrast with existing scholarship, which tends to look at the various types of NCD individually, it analyses all NCD collectively. I conduct this analysis mainly from a philosophical point of view. I aim to show that the law of NCD is unclear and incoherent and that no one has yet offered a satisfactory definition of NCD. The problem that I seek to resolve is whether NCD are a mere collection of disparate types of award or whether there are any commonalities amongst them. It is argued that NCD can be analysed as a unitary category because they have common justificatory grounds. Such understanding casts new light both on the law of NCD and the law of damages generally.</p> <p>There are three main original contributions in this thesis. First, NCD is not and cannot be currently conceptualised as a reductionist doctrinal concept. Instead, it can be scrutinised as a meaningful philosophical category. Second, NCD may be collectively justified by recourse to damage to societal rights (as opposed to the claimant’s rights). These justificatory underpinnings are best explained as non-correlative justifying reasons. NCD pursue non-correlative justifying goals of punishment, declaration, prevention, and restitution, which may be collectively explained as distributive justice goals. In support of these claims, the thesis offers an original conceptual and ethical analysis of NCD and provides an original analytical framework for justifying damages awards. Third, it is argued that NCD, to be clearly and systematically distinguished from compensatory awards, are best described as ‘distributive damages’ and a coherent theory of these awards is offered. The theory also shows how these awards may be justified and why they should be treated as exceptional types of remedies.</p>
|
|---|