Nominal Damages CASES
In English law, nominal damages are a small, fixed or modest sum awarded to recognise that a legal right has been violated even though the claimant has suffered no provable financial loss (or chooses not to prove it). They are vindicatory rather than compensatory: the award marks the wrongdoing and affirms the right, but it is not intended to measure loss.
Definition and principles
Nominal damages arise where liability is established but loss is absent, trivial, unproven, or not legally recoverable. They are common in torts that are actionable per se (for example, trespass to land or goods) and in breach of contract cases where the breach did not cause measurable loss. The amount is symbolic—often a token sum—set by the court as a matter of principle, not calculation. Nominal damages are distinct from contempt fines (which are punitive) and from aggravated or exemplary damages (which respond to particular conduct and are exceptional).
Common examples
- Trespass to land: a technical encroachment or one-off entry causes no financial loss but infringes the occupier’s rights.
- Trespass to goods or conversion: momentary interference without quantifiable loss of value or use.
- Breach of contract: performance falls short but the claimant cannot prove any pecuniary loss or the market difference is zero.
- Breach of a negative covenant: a prohibited act occurs briefly, causing no demonstrable loss, yet the contractual right is infringed.
Legal implications
- Rights and further relief: a nominal award confirms liability and can support injunctions or declarations where ongoing protection of rights is needed (for example, to restrain repeated trespass).
- Costs: “costs follow the event” does not automatically guarantee a full costs order for a purely nominal win. The court has a wide discretion and may make issue-based, reduced, or no order as to costs, especially if litigation could have been avoided or the real objectives were not achieved.
- Quantification: the figure is modest and symbolic; it does not preclude a separate assessment of interest or the availability of other, non-monetary remedies.
- Serious-harm and threshold rules: in some causes of action modern thresholds limit claims where only trivial harm is shown (for example, the “serious harm” requirement in defamation). In those areas, nominal damages may be unavailable unless the threshold is met.
Practical importance
Nominal damages are useful where the claimant’s priority is to vindicate a right, establish a legal position, or obtain injunctive relief. Before issuing, consider proportionality and costs risk: a nominal victory may not justify heavy expenditure. Where ongoing conduct is likely, combine a nominal claim with a well-targeted application for interim or final injunctive relief. For defendants, early offers, undertakings, and remediation can reduce the risk of adverse costs where only a technical infringement is at stake.
See also: Damages; Injunctions; Declarations; Trespass; Breach of contract; Aggravated and exemplary damages; Costs.
Home » Nominal Damages
Foreign prisoners were detained pending deportation under an unpublished, secret policy. The Supreme Court ruled this constituted false imprisonment. However, because they would have been detained anyway under a lawful policy, they were only entitled to nominal, not substantial, damages for the tort. Facts The appellants, Mr Lumba and Mr Mighty, were foreign nationals who had completed criminal sentences in the UK and were subject to deportation orders. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had the power to detain them pending deportation. The published policy regarding such detention, based on the principles established in R v Governor of
A developer breached a restrictive covenant by building more houses than permitted by the contract. The landowner suffered no financial loss. The Court of Appeal awarded only nominal damages, holding that damages for breach of contract are compensatory, not restitutionary. Facts The plaintiffs, Surrey County Council and another council, sold two plots of land to the defendant developers, Bredero Homes Ltd. The sale incorporated restrictive covenants in the deeds. One covenant stipulated that the defendants would not develop a plot (the ‘red land’) with more than 72 houses. The defendants subsequently obtained a new planning permission and built 77 houses
A car dealer sued a buyer who repudiated a contract to buy a new car. Since demand for the car exceeded supply, the dealer easily resold it without loss. The court awarded only nominal damages, finding no actual loss of profit. Facts The plaintiff, Mr Charter, was a motor car dealer. He entered into a contract to sell a new Hillman Minx car to the defendant, Mr Sullivan, at the fixed retail price of £773 17s. Before the car was delivered, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff repudiating the contract and refusing to take delivery. Approximately ten days later, the
