Ley v Hamilton: HL 1935

The House approved awards of punitive or exemplary damages. Lord Atkin said: said that damages awards for defamation were not arrived at ‘by determining the ‘real’ damage and adding to that a sum by way of vindictive or punitive damages. It is precisely because the ‘ real’ damage cannot be ascertained and established that the damages are at large. It is impossible to track the scandal, to know what quarters the poison may reach; it is impossible to weigh at all closely the compensation which will recompense a man or a woman for the insult offered or the pain of a false accusation. No doubt in newspaper libels juries take into account the vast circulations which are justly claimed in present times. The ‘punitive’ element is not something which is or can be added to some known factor which is non-punitive ‘.

Judges:

Lord Atkin

Citations:

(1935) 153 LT 384

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedCassell and Co Ltd v Broome and Another HL 23-Feb-1972
Exemplary Damages Award in Defamation
The plaintiff had been awarded damages for defamation. The defendants pleaded justification. Before the trial the plaintiff gave notice that he wanted additional, exemplary, damages. The trial judge said that such a claim had to have been pleaded. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Damages, Defamation

Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.223203