… Yet what this article seeks to argue is that, as one continues to dig, scrutinising the facts and asking the questions that the law does not generally ask of itself, a much simpler picture comes into focus. Behind what first appeared as a wilderness of single instances, English law shows itself to be closely approximating what is in reality a remarkably simple model: the emotional consequences of a wrong are compensable as a matter of principle. When a right is infringed, consequences of two types, to the pocket and the mind, are liable to follow and, to the extent that they do follow in the eyes of the law, the claimant is entitled to compensation – ie to a monetary award ‘making up’, as far as money can, for those detrimental consequences – in respect of both. If exceptions exist, they are narrow and unprincipled and should therefore go. The present article sets out to explore this strikingly simple picture behind the apparent muddle …
Eric Descheemaeker, ‘Rationalising recovery for emotional harm in tort law’ (2018) 134 Law Quarterly Review (Oct) 602.