§ Lord Lester of Herne Hillasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by the Baroness Ashton of Upholland on 15 September (WA 191), whether there is any evidence that the pattern of compensation under the Human Rights Act 1998 indicates that excessive compensation has been awarded to victims of breaches of the Act; or that the awards have tended to encourage a compensation culture. [HL4297]
§ Baroness Ashton of UphollandThe lack of centrally maintained data mentioned in my earlier answer makes a detailed response impossible. Damages may be awarded under Section 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 only where a person establishes that his convention rights have been or would be infringed by the act of a public authority. The statutory regime of Section 8 is more restrictive than the principles which govern the award of damages for breaches of private law obligations. Damages are only to be awarded where necessary to afford just satisfaction to the claimant and in many cases the award of damages will not be so necessary. In making this assessment Section 8(4) requires the court to take into account the principles applied by the European Court of Human Rights in awarding compensation: the European Court does not make such awards as a matter of course and the amounts awarded tend to be modest. The courts also recognise, where damages are necessary, that a balance must be struck between the interests of the claimant in being compensated and the wider interests of the public at large. The statutory regime therefore guards against both excessive awards and a compensation culture.