According to the nature of the case "an award of nominal damages may be honourable or contumacious to the plaintiff?” Explain what is here meant.
Find the question and answer of Law of Torts only on Legal Bites.
Question: According to the nature of the case "an award of nominal damages may be honourable or contumacious to the plaintiff?” Explain what is here meant.Find the question and answer of Law of Torts only on Legal Bites. [According to the nature of the case "an award of nominal damages may be honourable or contumacious to the plaintiff?” Explain what is here meant.]AnswerNominal damages are a small amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff in a tort case, usually in situations where...
Question: According to the nature of the case "an award of nominal damages may be honourable or contumacious to the plaintiff?” Explain what is here meant.
Find the question and answer of Law of Torts only on Legal Bites. [According to the nature of the case "an award of nominal damages may be honourable or contumacious to the plaintiff?” Explain what is here meant.]
Answer
Nominal damages are a small amount of damages awarded to the plaintiff in a tort case, usually in situations where the plaintiff has suffered a legal wrong but has not suffered any actual damages or has suffered only a small amount of damages. In some cases, an award of nominal damages may be considered an honour to the plaintiff, while in other cases, it may be considered contumacious or insulting.
The issue of whether an award of nominal damages is honourable or contumacious to the plaintiff depends on the nature of the case and the circumstances surrounding the case. In some cases, an award of nominal damages may be considered a moral victory for the plaintiff, even though the damages awarded are small. In other cases, an award of nominal damages may be seen as an insult or a trivialization of the plaintiff's injuries or losses.
For example, in the case of Ashley v. Chief Constable of Sussex Police, [2008] EWCA Civ 1407, the plaintiff, a protester, was wrongfully arrested and detained by the police. The plaintiff sued for false imprisonment, and the court found that the plaintiff had been wrongfully arrested but had suffered no actual damages. The court awarded the plaintiff nominal damages of £1. The court stated that the award of nominal damages was a symbolic vindication of the plaintiff's rights and was not intended to trivialize the plaintiff's injuries or losses. In this case, the award of nominal damages was considered an honourable outcome for the plaintiff.
On the other hand, in the case of Cassell & Co Ltd v. Broome, [1972] AC 1027, the plaintiff, a publisher, sued the defendant for libel. The court found that the defendant had indeed defamed the plaintiff but awarded the plaintiff nominal damages of £2. The court stated that the plaintiff had not suffered any actual damages and that the award of nominal damages was sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's right to a good reputation. However, the award of nominal damages, in this case, was widely criticized and was considered contumacious to the plaintiff, as it trivialized the serious harm that the plaintiff had suffered to his reputation.
An Award of nominal damages may be considered honourable or contumacious to the plaintiff, depending on the circumstances of the case. In cases where the plaintiff has suffered a legal wrong but has not suffered any actual damages, an award of nominal damages may be seen as a moral victory for the plaintiff. However, in cases where the plaintiff has suffered serious harm or injury, an award of nominal damages may be considered an insult or a trivialization of the plaintiff's injuries or losses.
Mayank Shekhar
Mayank is an alumnus of the prestigious Faculty of Law, Delhi University. Under his leadership, Legal Bites has been researching and developing resources through blogging, educational resources, competitions, and seminars.
