Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary ... - Law Commission

circulation figures will earn the paper a profit significantly in excess of the
damages likely to be payable. The school-teacher claims damages for
defamation, but is unable to prove that his story led to any measurable
increase in the newspaper’s profits.
(3) A medical practitioner carries out large-scale, intrusive and unnecessary
surgery on a private patient. He deliberately withheld the information from
the patient, who he was aware placed complete trust in him, because he
knew that the patient would not have consented, had the patient known of
the true position, and because he would obtain a sizeable sum as payment
for the surgery. The patient claims damages for trespass to the person.
(4) A photographer takes photographs at a wedding. Some time later, the
father of the groom is murdered in horrific circumstances which attract a
large amount of publicity. The photographer sells copies of the wedding
photographs to the national press. The photographs feature prominently
on the pages of several national newspapers. The groom-son of the murder
victim seeks damages from the photographer for infringement of copyright.
(5) An employee is subjected to a campaign of racial harassment by a group of
fellow employees over a long period, ranging from taunting, ostracism, and
false accusations of misconduct, to violent physical abuse. Though she
makes a formal complaint to her employer, no proper investigation is
conducted and no further action is taken. The harassment continues. The
employee claims damages for unlawful discrimination contrary to the Race
Relations Act 1976 against the fellow employees.
(6) A private store detective accuses a shopper of shoplifting, without basis for
the accusation and purely vindictively. He detains the shopper, forces her
to undergo an intrusive bodily search and then proceeds to fabricate
evidence against her. As a result, the shop initiates a private prosecution
against the shopper, which fails. The shopper claims damages from the
store detective and his employers for assault and false imprisonment.
(7) An employer carries out a manufacturing process which produces a large
amount of dust in the workplace. Regular complaints have been made to
the employer by employees who have started to develop respiratory
problems as a result of persistent exposure to the dust. Although the
employer is aware of the substantial risk of serious injury to which its
employees are being exposed, it decides not to install an effective extraction
system, and takes no other steps, at any time, to address the problem.
Instead, in blatant and knowing disregard of the health and welfare of its
workforce, it chooses to use its capital expenditure on profit-increasing
capital items. An employee who has developed particularly severe
respiratory problems, and has been forced to leave work, claims damages
for negligence and for breach of statutory duty.
(8) An ex-employee of a company designing computer software sets up a rival
business. Using information which he obtained in confidence during his
employment with the company, the ex-employee’s business thrives. Whilst
the ex-employee knows that his use of the information is wrongful, he
considers that it is worth committing the wrong because, even if found out
8