Case Law Database - Free Law Cases:
Are You Writing a Law Essay?
Perhaps you are currently struggling with a dissertation or piece of coursework? Law Teacher provides students with hundreds of resources to make academic life so much easier! The case law database you are currently viewing is one such resource, but why not purchase a custom essay for guaranteed success?! Our researchers have access to thousands of cases similar to this one. So stop struggling - Order a Custom Essay Today!
Case Law : Company | Contract | Criminal | Employment | Equity | EU | Land | Tort | Other
A v Bottrill
[2002] UKPC 44, [2003] 1 AC 449, [2002] 3 WLR 1406, 70 BMLR 198, [2003] 1 LRC 777, [2002] All ER (D) 64 (Sep)
Court: PC
Judgment Date: 06/09/2002
Case History
Annotations | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
- | A v Bottrill | [2002] UKPC 44, [2003] 1 AC 449, [2002] 3 WLR 1406, 70 BMLR 198, [2003] 1 LRC 777, [2002] All ER (D) 64 (Sep) | PC | 06/09/200 | |
Reversing | Bottrill v A | [2002] 2 LRC 299 | NZ CA | 13/06/200 |
|
Cases considered by this case
Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)
Treatment | Case Name | Citations | Court | Date | Signal |
Considered | Whiten v Pilot Insurance Co | [2002] 5 LRC 296 | Can SC | 22/02/200 | |
Considered | Gray v Motor Accident Commission | [2000] 1 LRC 437 | Aus HC (Full Ct) | 17/11/199 |
Catchwords & Digest
NEGLIGENCE - EXEMPLARY DAMAGES - JURISDICTION - WHETHER CLAIM CAN ONLY BE BROUGHT AGAINST PERSON WHO HAS ACTED INTENTIONALLY OR BEEN CONSCIOUSLY RECKLESS
The respondent, who was responsible for examining the cervical smear tests in a particular area of New Zealand, examined the appellant's cervical smear tests and misread or misreported the results. Medical disciplinary proceedings resulted in a finding of conduct unbecoming a medical practitioner. The appellant successfully brought proceedings for accident compensation but subsequently her claim for exemplary damages was dismissed. She successfully applied for a retrial on the basis of fresh evidence which related to other similar cases and obtained information that the respondents' false reporting rate was in excess of 50%. The respondent appealed to Court of Appeal on the ground that it was not a suitable case for exemplary damages because there had not been subjective recklessness or intention. The Court of Appeal found that exemplary damages should be so limited in principle and further stated that there were three strong policy reasons for restricting exemplary damages: difficulty in defining outrageousness, fears about floodgates and concerns about damages where there was not an alternative remedy because inadequate weight would be given to social considerations. The appellant was granted leave to appeal to Her Majesty in Council on the question of whether under the common law of New Zealand awards of exemplary damages in the cases of negligence had been or should be restricted to cases of intentional wrongdoing or conscious recklessness.
Held - The appeal would be allowed.The basic question in a case of exemplary damages was always whether the conduct satisfied the outrageous conduct criterion. As a matter of legal principle the jurisdiction for claims of exemplary damages should not be restricted to cases of intentional or consciously reckless conduct because it would fail to treat like cases alike. Moreover, there were no sufficient policy reasons to depart from that principle because the definition of outrageousness was a question of degree and courts were able to identify something extra to fulfil the criteria, local courts were in the best position to consider applicable social factors and fears about floodgates were not anticipated. In those circumstances, the order of the Court of Appeal would be set aside and the order for a new trial would be restored.
