Restitutio in Integrum

Author : Aeshita Marwah, University of Petroleum & Energy Sciences.

Restitutio ad integrum or restitutio in integrum is a Latin term which means restoration to original condition. It is one of the fundamental guiding concepts for damages in negligence claims under common law. It also refers to a form of recourse in European patent law accessible to an applicant or patent proprietor that, while taking all reasonable care, fails to satisfy a time restriction. In ancient Roman law, it was a unique procedure of intervention for preachers in a legal proceeding that was otherwise lawful and which was considered particularly unfair or dangerous.

The term restitutio in integrum also refers to the means of remedial action available to applicants or proprietors who have failed to meet the term following the law of patent law, that is, the European Patent Convention (EPC), despite exercising ‘all due care required by the circumstances.’ The applicant or patentee shall re-establish his rights when the application for restitutio in integrum is accepted as if the period was duly observed.

Restitutio ad integrum is one of the most important common law directives for the award of damages about negligence claims. As the idea implies, the fundamental principle is that the amount of the compensation given should make the successful complaint aware that the torture proceedings were not carried out. Therefore, the petitioner has to be compensated for immediate expenditures, such as medical charges and property repairs and loss of future damage incomes (which often involves difficult speculation about the future career and promotion prospects). While monetary compensation cannot be linked directly to physical deprivation, compensation for loss of amenities is usually regarded as the consequence of the decline of the expected level of life caused by damages, pain, and suffering. The restitution concept justifies damages awarded in these categories since monetary compensation offers the best method to remedy the bodily injury-related default.

While monetary compensation cannot be linked directly to physical deprivation, compensation for loss of amenities is usually regarded as the consequence of the decline of the expected level of life caused by damages, pain, and suffering. The restitution concept justifies damages awarded in these categories since monetary compensation offers the best method to remedy the bodily injury-related default. 

Scope of application of the term 

This applies to all illegal activities, whether the violation is a contract violation or an international requirement (and regardless of the nature of the treaty standard).

The courts distinguish between valid expropriation and unlawful conduct and thus impose different compensation criteria. While compensation for legitimate expropriation typically conforms to the norm of the investment treaty, recompense for illegally acting is usually subject to the ‘full repair’ criterion of customary international law.

Nature

In theory, restoration in the integrum must be done by compensation in kind. Monetary remuneration only becomes acceptable if specified performance is unattainable or requires a disproportionate hardship. The fact that the State should abrogate its legislation, reinstate the investor of its rights, or reverse the illegal step it has undertaken typically represents a disproportionate breach of the State’s exercise in its sovereignty is universally understood. Consequently, financial compensation has become a sufficient and typical remedy and must reflect the worth of money in kind

Case Laws

The Hon’ble Supreme had neglected the surgeon to operate a fifteen-year-old kid with just 35000 tracts and, based on Hon’ble precedents about compensation calculations, determined the vicarious obligation for the hospital concerned and granted the family remuneration.

In V. Krishnakumar v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others 6 (2015) 9 SCC 388, the Court of Hon’ble reaffirmed and affirmed that reimbursement of compensation is an integral concept that may be securely based. The concept is that the damaged individual should obtain as much of the money as feasible to put him in the same situation as if he hadn’t suffered the bad thing. In the case of Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Co (1880) LR 5 AC 25(HL), the idea of integrum in restitutio had first been put up for compensation. The concept is applied to the injured individual by getting that quantity of money which, had he not suffered wrongly, would put him in the same position. It must inevitably result in the aggrieved person being reimbursed by the financial loss created by the occurrence, the suffering and anguish endured, and his or her culpability for the impairment produced by the occurrence.

Limitations of the maxim 

• Integrated restoration must be a guideline and restriction for both (overcompensation). The injured party cannot be enriched or the penalty by granting excessive or punitive damage can neither be based on the punishment of the state concerned. The award of moral damages is thus also seen as improper since it gives the damaged party a financial situation better than it would otherwise have had.
• This limitation is however occasionally ignored in practice. In “extraordinary situations” there is a propensity to grant moral damages. It has also been recognized by the courts that punitive damages can be allocated, although restricted to high “regrets.” However, exemplary damages remain refuted in the prevailing investment case law.
• Numerous authorities propose that following consideration of mitigating circumstances like contribution carelessness, failure to minimize harm, interference with competing causes, the application of the principle of ratio, etc., the duty to pay complete restitution should be decreased.