law commission
REMEDIES AGAINST PUBLIC BODIES
A SCOPING REPORT

The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law.
The Law Commissioners are:
	The Honourable Mr Justice Etherton, Chairman
	Professor Hugh Beale QC, FBA
	Mr Stuart Bridge
	Dr Jeremy Horder
	Mr Kenneth Parker QC
The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Steve Humphreys and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ.
Any communications relating to this report or the substantive project should be addressed to.
Richard Percival
Law Commission
Conquest House
37-38 John Street
Theobalds Road
London
WC1N 2BQ
Tel: 	020-7453-1236
Fax:	020-7453-1297
Email:	richard.percival@lawcommission.gsi.gov.uk

This report is available free of charge on our website at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/remedies.htm

contents

PART 1: INTRODUCTION	2

PART 2: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT	3

PART 3: PUBLIC BODIES AND COMPENSATION	10

PART 4: ARE DAMAGES ALWAYS THE ANSWER?	32

PART 5: THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT	42

Part 1	
Introduction 
1.1	This report sets out our plans for a substantive law reform project on the remedies available to the individual against public bodies. We set out our conclusions on the scope of, and terms of reference for, the project in Part 5 below. 
1.2	The origins of this work lie in the reflection and consultation exercise we undertook in preparing our Ninth Programme of Law Reform. The Ninth Programme was published in March 2005, following approval by the Lord Chancellor. A scoping study, the results of which are contained in this report, was included in that Programme, as a preliminary to a substantive law reform project. We have found the task of delineating a project that was both manageable in terms of workload and likely to produce substantive public benefit a difficult one. We describe the process by which our thinking on the project has developed in Part 2. Understanding that process is, we think, important in appreciating the nature of the substantive project upon which we will now embark.
1.3	The purpose of this paper is to delineate the scope of a substantive law reform project. Given the history of the development of the project outlined in Part 2, we do not think it desirable to consult further – this is a report, not a consultation paper. We would, nonetheless, be happy to receive any thoughts that practitioners, academics or others interested in our subject matter might like to submit at any time.
1.4	Necessarily, in considering in this report what the scope of the project should be, we have sometimes stated conclusions or taken positions. We emphasise that any such conclusions or positions are very much provisional and preliminary – they do not bind us for the purposes of the substantive project. And, of course, any provisional conclusions we arrive at will be subject to consultation as part of the substantive project. We will publish a full-scale substantive consultation paper in due course.