Abstrakt
Leaving aside the anomalous exception of punitive damages, damages are compensatory. That is axiomatic.' (AG v Blake [2001] 1 AC 268 (HL) 282).
However, if we look at the relevant case law and current private law theory, we soon realize that there are much more categories of damages, such as aggravated damages, nominal damages, disgorgement damages, restitutionary damages, preventive damages, negotiating damages, Wrotham Park damages, or, most recently, vindicatory damages or substitutive damages, and so the axiom rather could be restated as follows: Leaving aside the anomalous exception of non-compensatory damages, damages are compensatory. But what are the criteria for applying this 'anomalous exception'? Is there a unifying feature of all non-compensatory damages? Are they, overall, a uniform category, that can ultimately be justified by recourse to the same reasons? And are these reasons clearly distinct from those justifying compensatory awards?