Compensatory damages meaning

Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Judges at the EU Court of Justice have stated that, under Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation, proof of harm is required before compensation can be awarded against the responsible data controller. They explained that anyone seeking damages must demonstrate not only that the Regulation was breached, but that this infringement caused material or moral harm. The reference arose from proceedings before the district court in Hagen, Germany, which asked a series of questions about entitlement to compensation for non-material damage—such as pain, upset or stress. The referring court’s queries centre on whether a claimant must evidence such non-material harm in addition to proving that a data breach occurred. It also sought clarification on whether the disclosure of a paper document to an unauthorised individual is sufficient, on its own, to constitute a GDPR infringement. Overall, the EU court confirmed the need for causation between breach and damage, not just proof of non-compliance...

In this issue: Arbitration in England & Wales International arbitration Institutional and ad hoc arbitration Other arbitration and ADR-related news and developments Daily and weekly news alerts New and updated content Useful information Arbitration in England & Wales Supreme Court upholds costs award in sterling The UK Supreme Court has unanimously rejected Process & Industrial Developments Ltd’s (P&ID) challenge to a costs order made in favour of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Nigeria). It confirmed that the Commercial Court and the Court of Appeal were right to make the order in sterling rather than Nigeria’s national currency, the naira. The justices held that costs orders are discretionary, not compensatory like damages, and that it was proper to frame the order in the currency in which Nigeria incurred and settled its legal expenses. The court identified no legal error in the decisions below and remarked that currency movements did not produce any ‘windfall’ for Nigeria. Duarte G....

Sharp Corp Ltd v Viterra BV (previously known as Glencore Agriculture BV) [2024] UKSC 14 What are the practical implications of this case? The Judgment offers clear confirmation of key principles underlying AA 1996, s 69. Delivering the leading Judgment, Lord Hamblen emphasises the restricted nature of any right of appeal under the Act, together with the strong policy justifications for that restriction. The court’s conclusions also reflect the overarching tenet in AA 1996, s 1(c) that judicial involvement in arbitration should be confined to circumstances where it is truly required. Practitioners are likely to appreciate the Supreme Court’s additional guidance on the Gafta Default Clause, whose construction has long divided the arbitration community. In Bunge v Nidera BV [2015] UKSC 43, the Supreme Court stated that the compensatory aim of the law of damages is normally realised by contrasting the contract price with the price that would have been struck under a hypothetical substitute contract on identical terms, save as to the market price of the goods...

Overview This Practice Note forms part of our LLB Contract Law series for law students. It surveys the remedies for breach of contract, with damages at the heart of the common law response. Setting remedies within the framework of contract, it explains when a party may terminate—most notably for breach of conditions and of innominate (or ‘intermediate’) terms. It then sets out the expectation principle from Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850, stressing that an award should put the claimant in the position they would have been in had performance occurred. The Note next traces the principal constraints on recovery—causation, remoteness, and the duty to mitigate—and discusses leading cases on mitigation to show how these limits operate even once breach is proved. It also considers alternative measures—expectation, reliance and, in rare cases, restitutionary recovery—before addressing quantification, including the contrast between ‘difference in value’ and ‘cost of cure’ illustrated by Ruxley Electronics v Forsyth [1996] AC 344. Finally, it deals with non-pecuniary loss and the contemporary approach to liquidated...

This Practice Note sets out when, for breaches of restrictive covenants, the court may grant damages rather than an injunction, how such damages are quantified, and the effect of any delay by the beneficiary in bringing a claim. Damages or injunction—the test As a rule, the principal response to breach of a restrictive covenant is a final injunction restraining the misconduct. That said, the court can substitute damages in place of injunctive relief. Save where the original covenantor is in breach, this is an equitable jurisdiction, so the remedy is discretionary. The court may weigh the parties’ conduct—for example, the beneficiary’s delay or inaction—as evidence that an award of damages in lieu could be appropriate. In Shelfer v City of London Electric Lighting, the court articulated a ‘working rule’ for preferring damages where: the infringement of the claimant’s legal rights is minor the harm is readily assessable in monetary terms a modest financial award would provide adequate compensation, and granting an...

Remedies for misuse of private information and breach of confidence This Practice Note concentrates on the relief available where private information has been misused—whether through an actual or threatened publication, or by the manner in which personal information was obtained—and for breaches of confidence involving the disclosure of personal information. The principal forms of relief are damages and injunctions. Because the law in this field embraces a broad spectrum of factual circumstances, courts take a supple, case-sensitive approach to remedies. Thus, in one set of facts, the most effective way to vindicate the claimant’s privacy may be an injunction restraining an anticipated disclosure; in another, the defendant may already have disclosed the material without authority and derived a commercial gain. In that scenario, suitable relief may include compensatory damages or an order for an account of profits, together with an injunction stopping any further dissemination and directions for delivery up or destruction of the private and/or confidential information at issue. Accordingly, remedies are tailored to the circumstances, ensuring privacy...