Damages

Liability of concurrent tortfeasors for the same harm was discharged by a settlement which had been agreed with one of them. As a matter of principle, once a claimant’s claim had been fully satisfied by one of a number of concurrent tortfeasors, his cause of action for damages was extinguished against all of them. However, the authorities had firmly established that the court’s jurisdiction was not one based in tort, but by reference to the broader considerations of equity. Therefore, the authority regulating tortious damages as between concurrent tortfeasors might not be entirely to the point. In exercising its jurisdiction, the court had to take into consideration that damages obtained by a settlement with an impecunious criminal might frequently fall far short of an equitable award under the Act. Further, authority provided that it would be wrong to allow the sanction imposed by the disciplinary panel to influence the amount of the award. In relation to wider internal investigations, which were not related to discipline, the willingness to learn