Examples Of Restitutio Integrum

Introduction
This essay argues that the underlying principle on which damages for personal injury are awarded, which is restitutio in integrum is fundamentally flawed. Firstly, the damages assessment for future earning capacity based on an individual's occupation and race is discussed as discriminatory since it promotes social inequality. Secondly, the entrenching social issue of gender-based assumptions is examined as another flaw of the principle due to its unfair outcome.
Furthermore, the legislative changes influenced by the Ipp Panel Report are discussed as failing to address the discriminatory aspect of the principle.
Lastly, the impossibility of predicting the future and placing monetary value to compensate intangible injuries are examined
The differential valuation of an individual's loss based on systematic factors such as gender, race and socio-economic status can detrimentally affect the damages awarded for future earning capacity . The restitutio principle attempts to reimburse an individual had the tort not occurred by placing an emphasis on their social identity. Accordingly, a person from a more privileged background such as in Norris v Blake, would benefit from the principle, while others from a less fortunate background would experience discrimination. For example, in Dixon v Davies, the damages for future economic loss was calculated on the basis of the injured individual's Aboriginal identity. This led to the reduced compensation because of the expectation shorter working life compared to other members of the society . The court's consideration of Aboriginal morality in determining damages is problematic because it is discriminatory against individuals of that background. In this regard, a claimant may receive different rewards for the same injury because it depends on their racial identification. Thus, the restitutio principle is deemed undesirable because systemic inequality is consistently reproduced in the courts through the disproportionate allocation of