Punitive Damages from an English Law Perspective

Öz

Defendant having breached a contract or inflicted a tort is liable to compensate the loss suffered by the other party. Any award of damages exceeding loss is qualified as “penalty” and hence assessed to be outside the realm of private law. Still, certain legal systems allow for punitive damages under some exceptional conditions. This study focuses on the historical roots and current state of punitive damages in English law. Historically, an award of damages exceeding loss is rooted on flexibility of the law of damages in the field of torts. Punitive damages ultimately turned out to hold a significant place in modern tort law. Yet, House of Lords narrowed down its field of application in torts via category test. On the other hand, the widely held view that punitive damages are not allowed under contract law, has become disputed.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Punitive Damages
• English Law
• English Legal History
• Category Test
• Punitive Damages for Breach of Contract

Cezalandırıcı Tazminat Kavramına İngiliz Hukuku Odaklı Bir Bakış

Öz

Sözleşmeyi ihlal eden veya haksız fiilde bulunan kişinin tazminat sorumluluğu, tazminat hukukunun temel ilkesi doğrultusunda karşı tarafın uğramış olduğu zararla sınırlıdır. Karşı tarafın uğramış olduğu zararı aşan bir tazminata hükmedilmesi, “ceza” niteliği taşır ve bu anlamda özel hukuka yabancı olarak nitelendirilir. Temel ilke bu olmakla birlikte, bazı hukuk sistemleri istisna niteliği taşıyan bazı durumlarda cezalandırıcı tazminata hükmedilmesine olanak tanımaktadır. Zararı aşan tazminat kavramını belirli bir bakış açısıyla incelemeyi amaçlayan bu çalışma da cezalandırıcı tazminat kavramının İngiliz hukukundaki tarihsel gelişimine ve güncel durumuna odaklanmaktadır. Bu çerçevede zararı aşan miktarda tazminata hükmedilmesinin, İngiliz hukukunun tarihsel gelişimi içerisinde haksız fiil alanında tazminatın belirlenmesine ilişkin ilkelerin esnekliğine dayalı olarak kendiliğinden ortaya çıkmış bir olgu olduğu gösterilmiştir. En nihayetinde cezalandırıcı tazminat, modern İngiliz haksız fiil hukukunda kayda değer bir yer edinmiştir. Fakat cezalandırıcı tazminatın bu geniş uygulama alanı, Lordlar Kamarasının cezalandırıcı tazminata başvurulup başvurulamayacağına ilişkin olarak bir kategori testi öngören kararıyla daraltılmış bulunmaktadır. Öte yandan İngiliz hukukunda sözleşme ihlali neticesinde cezalandırıcı tazminata hükmedilmesinin mümkün olmadığı yönündeki genel kabul, özellikle son dönemde öğretinin tartıştığı konulardan biri hâline gelmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Cezalandırıcı Tazminat
• İngiliz Hukuku
• İngiliz Hukuku Tarihi
• Kategori Testi
• Sözleşme İhlaline Bağlı Cezalandırıcı Tazminat

Kaynakça

1. Arslan Demir G, ‘Haksız Fiil Hukukuna Yönelik Muhtelif Yaklaşımların Liebeck v. McDonald’s Davası Kapsamında İncelenmesi’ iç Başak Baysal (ed) Sorumluluk Hukuku Seminerler Makaleler 2017 (On İki Levha 2017).
2. Bailey S H, Ching J P L and Taylor N W, Smith, Bailey and Gunn on the Modern English Legal System (5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2007).
3. Baker J H, An Introduction to English Legal History (4th edn Butterworths Lexis Nexis 2002).
4. Baş Süzel E, Gerçek Olmayan Vekaletsiz İş Görme – Menfaat Devri Yaptırımı (On İki Levha 2015).
5. Başoğlu B, ‘Cezalandırıcı Tazminat (Punitive Damages) Yaptırımı ve Bu Yaptırımın Türk Hukukuna Etkilerinin Değerlendirilmesi’ (2016) 15(1) İstanbul Kültür Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi (Prof. Dr. Turhan Esener’e Armağan) 617-637.
6. Beatson J, Burrows A and Cartwright J, Anson’s Law of Contract (30th edn, Oxford University Press 2016).
7. Beaulac S, ‘A Comparative Look at Punitive Damages in Canada’, (2002) 17(2) Supreme Court Law Review 351-373.
8. Bell J, ‘Sources of Law’, in Andrew Burrows (ed) English Private Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2007).

9. Belli M M Sr, ‘Punitive Damages: Their History, Their Use and Their Worth in Present-Day Society’ (1980) 49(1) UMKC Law Review 1-23.
10. Brooke H, ‘A Brief Introduction: The Origins of Punitive Damages’ in Hermut Koziol and Vanessa Wilcox (eds) Punitive Damages: Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives (Springer 2009).
11. Burrows A, Remedies for Torts and Breach of Contract (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2004).
12. Burrows A, ‘Damages for Breach of Contract: A Developing Hierarchy?’ (2003) 35 Bracton Law Journal 28-44.
13. Burrows A, ‘Judicial Remedies’ in Andrew Burrows (ed) English Private Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2007).
14. Cain K G, ‘And Now, the Rest of the Story: The McDonald's Coffee Lawsuit’, (2007) 11(1) Journal of Consumer & Commercial Law 14-19.
15. Cross R and Harris J W, Precedent in English Law (4th edn, Clarendon 2004).
16. Cunnington R, ‘Should Punitive Damages Be Part of the Judicial Arsenal in Contract Cases?’ (2006) 26(3) Legal Studies 369-393.
17. David R and Brierley J E, Major Legal Systems in the World Today: An Introduction to the Comparative Study of Law (3rd edn Steven 1985).
18. Deakin S, Johnston A and Markesinis B, Markesinis and Deakin’s Tort Law (6th edn, Oxford University Press 2008).
19. Department for Constitutional Affairs, The Law on Damages (Consultation Paper 9/07, 4 May 2007).
20. Edelman J, McGregor on Damages (20th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2018).
21. Edelman J, ‘Exemplary Damages for Breach of Contract’ (2001) 117(4) Law Quarterly Review 539-545.
22. Edelman J and Davies J, ‘Torts and Equitable Wrongs’ in Andrew Burrows (ed) English Private Law (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2007).
23. Gotanda J Y, ‘Punitive Damages: A Comparative Analysis’ (2004) (42)2 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 391-444.
24. Gül İ, ABD ve Türk Hukukunda Medeni Ceza (Yetkin 2015).
25. Güleryüz M T ve Zorluoğlu Yılmaz A, ‘Cezalandırıcı Tazminatın [Punitive Damages] Bazı Türk Hukuku Müesseseleri ile Mukayesesi’ (2019) 31(141) Türkiye Barolar Birliği Dergisi 325-362.
26. İstemi M, ‘Sözleşmenin Cüretkârane İhlali ve Cezalandırıcı Tazminat’ iç Süleyman Başterzi (ed) Prof. Dr. Sarper Süzek'e Armağan Cilt-III (Beta 2011).
27. Jolowicz H F and Nicholas B, Historical Introduction to the Study of Roman Law (3rd edn Cambridge University Press 1972).
28. Kaser M, Knütel R and Lohsse S, Römisches Privatrecht (21st edn, Beck 2017).
29. Klayman E and Klayman S, ‘Punitive Damages: Toward Torah-Based Reform’ (2001) 23(1) Cardozo Law Review 221-252.
30. Kocourek A and Wigmore J H, Sources Of Ancient And Primitive Law (Little, Brown, and Company 1915).
31. Law Commission for England and Wales, Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary Damages, (Law Com No 247, 16 December 1997)
32. Lenz C, Amerikanische Punitive Damages vor dem schweizer Richter (Schultess 1992).
33. McCamus J D, ‘Prometheus Bound or Loose Cannon? Punitive Damages for Pure Breach of Contract in Canada’ (2004) 41(4) San Diego Law Review 1491-1520.
34. McKendrick E, ‘Breach of Contract, Restitution for Wrongs and Punishment’ in Andrew Burrows and Edwin Peel (eds), Commercial Remedies: Current Issues and Problems (Oxford University Press 2003).
35. Nicholas B, An Introduction to Roman Law (Oxford University Press 1962).
36. Normand S, ‘An Introduction To Quebec Civil Law’, in Aline Grenon and Louise Belanger-Hardy (eds), Elements of Quebec Civil Law: A Comparison with the Common Law of Canada, (Thomson Carswell 2008)
37. O’Connell J and Bailey T M, ‘The History of Payment in Pain and Suffering’ (1972) (1) University of Illinois Law Forum 83-109.
38. Oldham J, Trial by Jury: The Seventh Amendment and Anglo-American Special Juries (New York University Press 2006).
39. Oğuz A, Karşılaştırmalı Hukuk (2. Bası, Yetkin 2020).
40. Özden Merhacı S, Karşılaştırmalı Hukukta Cezalandırıcı Tazminat (Punitive Damages) (Yetkin 2013).
41. Peel E, Treitel on the Law of Contract (14th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2015).
42. Plucknett T F T, A Concise History of the Common Law (5th edn, Butterworth 1956).
43. Pollock F and Maitland F W, The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I Volume II (2nd edn Liberty Fund 2010).
44. Rogers W V H, Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (16th edn, Sweet & Maxwell 2002).
45. Rowan S, ‘Reflections on the Introduction of Punitive Damages for Breach of Contract’ (2010) 30(3) Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 495-517.
46. Rustad M and Koenig T, ‘The Historical Continuity of Punitive Damages Awards: Reforming the Tort Reformers’ (1993) 42(4) The American University Law Review 1269-1334.
47. Sales J B, ‘The Emergence of Punitive Damages in Product Liability Actions: A Further Assault on the Citadel’ (1983) 14(2) St. Mary's Law Journal 351-404.
48. Schlueter L L and Redden K R, Punitive Damages Volume 1 (4th edn, Lexis 2000).
49. Sullivan T J, ‘Punitive Damages in the Law of Contract: The Reality and the Illusion of Legal Change’ (1977) 61(2) Minnesota Law Review 207-252.
50. Swan J, ‘Punitive Damages for Breach of Contract: A Remedy in Search of a Justification’ (2004) 29(2) Queen’s Law Journal 596-646.
51. Taliadoros J, ‘The Roots of Punitive Damages at Common Law: A Longer History’, (2016) 64(2) Cleveland State Law Review 251-302.
52. Tettenborn A, ‘Punitive Damages – A View from England’ (2004) 41(4) San Diego Law Review 1551-1574.
53. Uçaryılmaz T Ş ve Emiroğlu H, ‘Roma Hukukunda Haksız Fiil ve Suç İlişkisi Işığında Tazminatın Cezalandırıcı Fonksiyonu’(2020) 69(2) Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 835-868.
54. Virgo G, The Principles of the Law of Restitution (3rd edn , Oxford University Press 2015).
55. Walther D L and Plein T A, ‘Punitive Damages: A Critical Analysis: Kink v. Combs’, (1965) 49(2) Marquette Law Review 369-386.
56. Washington G T, ‘Damages in Contract at Common Law’, (1931) 47(3) Law Quarterly Review 345-379.
57. Wilcox V, ‘Punitive Damages in England’ in Hermut Koziol and Vanessa Wilcox (eds) Punitive Damages: Common Law and Civil Law Perspectives (Springer 2009).
58. Yolcu S, İngiltere'de Kuvvetler Ayrılığı ve Yargı Bağımsızlığı Alanındaki Gelişmeler (Seçkin 2011).
59. Zimmermann R, The Law of Obligations: Roman Foundations of the Civilian Tradition (Juta & Co Ltd 1992).
60. Zweigert K and Kötz H (translated by Weir T), Introduction to Comparative Law (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 1998).