2017•Oxford Journal of Legal StudiesOpen access

An Empirical Study of Punitive Damages

James Goudkamp, Eleni Katsampouka

Open full text 7 citations

Abstract

This article reports and discusses the results of an empirical study of punitive damages. It examines 146 claims that were decided in all parts of the UK (save for Scotland, which does not recognise punitive damages) by first instance courts in the first 16 years of the twenty-first century. The study is the first of its kind to be conducted in the UK. In the morass of data, important evidence is uncovered regarding punitive damages. Our most significant findings include (1) that punitive damages (when claimed) are awarded reasonably regularly, (2) that the average award of punitive damages is relatively modest, (3) that there is considerable uniformity in terms of the size of punitive damages awards, and (4) that actions for defamation are unlikely to constitute an important source of punitive damages awards. These (and other) findings cast considerable doubt upon widely held views regarding punitive damages.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

This article reports and discusses the results of an empirical study of punitive damages. It examines 146 claims that were decided in all parts of the UK (save for Scotland, which does not recognise punitive damages) by first instance courts in the first 16 years of the twenty-first century. The study is the first of its kind to be conducted in the UK. In the morass of data, important evidence is uncovered regarding punitive damages. Our most significant findings include (1) that punitive damages (when claimed) are awarded reasonably regularly, (2) that the average award of punitive damages is relatively modest, (3) that there is considerable uniformity in terms of the size of punitive damages awards, and (4) that actions for defamation are unlikely to constitute an important source of punitive damages awards. These (and other) findings cast considerable doubt upon widely held views regarding punitive damages.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 7 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

This article reports and discusses the results of an empirical study of punitive damages. It examines 146 claims that were decided in all parts of the UK (save for Scotland, which does not recognise punitive damages) by first instance courts in the first 16 years of the twenty-first century. The study is the first of its kind to be conducted in the UK. In the morass of data, important evidence is uncovered regarding punitive damages. Our most significant findings include (1) that punitive damages (when claimed) are awarded reasonably regularly, (2) that the average award of punitive damages is relatively modest, (3) that there is considerable uniformity in terms of the size of punitive damages awards, and (4) that actions for defamation are unlikely to constitute an important source of punitive damages awards. These (and other) findings cast considerable doubt upon widely held views regarding punitive damages.

Key concepts: Punitive damages, Damages, Political science, Law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
An Empirical Study of Punitive Damages — Research Paper | ScholarLens