Vindicatory approach to the award of constitutional and public law damages : contemporary Commonwealth developments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to provide the missing link in the constitutional damages formulation by Lord Diplock in Maharaj v Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago (No 2) 1979 AC 385 and its attendant practical difficulties of quantifying what the plaintiff will receive in money terms, the Privy Council recently came up with the vindicatory approach in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v Ramanoop 2005 2 WLR 1324. The background to the development of this approach is unarguably traceable to the earlier 'right-centred/value-laden' approach of New Zealand Court of Appeal in the interpretation and application of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the criticisms of the Diplock formula by the Court of Appeal of Trinidad and Tobago. Although the vindicatory approach informs the award of constitutional damages by the Supreme Court of Canada and the Constitutional Court of South Africa in the interpretation of the Canadian Charter and the South African Bill of Rights respectively, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has denied its applicability in English law in the case of Lumba v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2011 2 WLR 671 (UKSC). This article maintains that the attitude of the UK Supreme Court smacks of its predecessor's approach to the award of public law damages in the English jurisdiction generally, contrary to the developments elsewhere in the Commonwealth.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".