CIVIL LAW AND UAE: PROPORTIONALITY IN CIVIL SANCTIONS AND DAMAGES

1. Introduction

Proportionality in UAE civil law means that the legal consequence imposed on a party should correspond to:

the nature and seriousness of the breach;

the actual damage suffered;

the causal contribution of each party;

the degree of fault;

the extent of contractual performance;

the injured party's own contribution to the damage; and

the purpose of the applicable civil remedy.

The principle is particularly important in:

compensation claims;

contractual damages;

tort liability;

agreed compensation/liquidated damages;

contributory negligence;

multiple wrongdoers;

moral damages;

specific performance and substitute compensation;

termination of contracts;

construction delay claims; and

restitution and unjust enrichment.

The current UAE Civil Transactions Law expressly provides that where several persons are responsible for harm, each is generally liable according to their share, while allowing the court in appropriate circumstances to impose equal or joint-and-several liability. It also permits reduction or denial of compensation where the injured party contributed to causing or aggravating the harm.

2. Meaning of Proportionality

In simple language:

The greater the legally attributable harm or responsibility, the greater the appropriate civil consequence; the smaller the responsibility or proven loss, the smaller the appropriate compensation.

However, proportionality does not mean that every damages award must be calculated through a simple mathematical percentage.

Courts consider the circumstances of the case.

For example:

A contractor causes 70% of a construction delay, while the employer causes 30%.

A proportional approach may require the court to examine:

which party caused which delay;

whether the delays overlapped;

whether the contractor could have mitigated the delay;

whether the employer contributed to the loss;

whether a contractual agreed-compensation clause applies.

3. Current UAE Legal Framework

The principal current statute is:

Federal Decree by Law No. 25 of 2025 promulgating the Civil Transactions Law, which entered into force on 1 June 2026 and replaced Federal Law No. 5 of 1985.

For proportionality, particularly important current provisions include:

Article 253 — multiple persons responsible for harm and contributory conduct;

Article 254 — moral harm;

Article 255 — assessment of compensation according to loss and lost profit that naturally results from the harmful act;

Article 256 — forms and reassessment of compensation;

Article 257 — invalidity of contractual exclusion/mitigation of liability for harmful acts;

Article 340 — agreed compensation.

4. Article 253: Proportionate Civil Liability

Article 253 is one of the clearest statutory expressions of proportionality.

It provides that where several persons are responsible for the same harm:

each is liable in proportion to their share in the harm.

The court may nevertheless order them to be liable equally or jointly and severally where appropriate.

The same article also provides that the court may reduce compensation, or refuse to award it, where the injured person contributed by their own conduct to causing or aggravating the harm.

Formula

Multiple fault → determine contribution → allocate liability

5. Example of Proportionate Liability

Suppose:

A contributes 60% to damage;

B contributes 40%;

total proven damage = AED 1,000,000.

A proportionate approach could result in:

A = AED 600,000;

B = AED 400,000.

But this is not an automatic mathematical rule in every case.

The court must examine:

causation;

evidence;

nature of each person's fault;

whether joint and several liability is legally appropriate.

6. Joint and Several Liability

Proportionality must be distinguished from joint and several liability.

Proportionate liability

Each defendant pays according to their legally determined share.

Joint and several liability

The claimant may recover the compensable amount from any defendant liable on that basis, subject to rights of contribution between responsible parties.

The current Article 253 expressly allows the court, where appropriate, to order equal or joint-and-several liability.

Thus:

Proportionality is the normal allocation principle, but the law permits different allocation where the circumstances justify it.

7. Contributory Fault

Another major application of proportionality is the conduct of the injured party.

Suppose:

Defendant causes an accident;

claimant also acts carelessly;

claimant's conduct increases the damage.

The court may reduce compensation.

The current Article 253 expressly recognises this principle.

Example

Damage = AED 500,000.

The claimant's own conduct materially aggravated the loss.

The court may reduce the award to reflect that contribution.

8. Causation and Proportionality

Proportionality cannot be determined without causation.

The court must ask:

Did the defendant's act actually contribute to the damage?

A person should not ordinarily be required to compensate for damage that is legally unrelated to their conduct.

Therefore:

Fault + Damage + Causation = Civil liability

Then:

Extent of contribution → proportional compensation

9. Actual Damage

The current Article 255 provides that compensation is assessed according to:

the extent of loss suffered; and

lost profit,

provided that the loss of profit is a natural consequence of the harmful act.

This creates an important proportionality principle:

Compensation should correspond to legally compensable loss rather than become a source of unjust enrichment.

10. Lost Profits

Lost profits can be compensable, but they must have a sufficient legal and evidential connection with the breach or harmful act.

A claimant should generally establish:

existence of the relevant business opportunity;

defendant's breach or harmful conduct;

causal relationship;

reasonably supportable amount;

absence of excessive speculation.

Therefore:

Potential profit ≠ automatically compensable profit.

11. Moral Damages

Proportionality is not restricted to financial loss.

Article 254 recognises moral harm, including infringement of:

freedom;

honour;

reputation;

social standing;

financial status.

The law also permits compensation for specified relatives for moral harm arising from incapacity or death.

The court therefore has to consider the nature and consequences of the non-economic injury.

12. Material and Moral Damage Together

The same event may produce:

Material damage

medical expenses;

loss of earnings;

property damage;

rehabilitation costs;

business loss.

Moral damage

pain and suffering;

reputational injury;

loss of family relationship;

emotional consequences recognised by law.

The current Civil Transactions Law expressly permits these forms of harm to be addressed within its compensation framework.

13. Proportionality and Agreed Compensation

One of the most important areas is the contractual penalty or agreed compensation clause.

The current Article 340 permits contracting parties to determine compensation in advance.

But judicial supervision remains.

The court may reduce agreed compensation where:

the debtor proves that the agreed amount was excessive;

the original obligation was partially performed;

the creditor contributed through fault to the occurrence or increase of damage.

If the creditor's fault predominates, the court may refrain from awarding compensation.

Conversely, the creditor may claim more than the agreed amount if fraud or gross fault by the debtor is proved.

14. Why Article 340 Is Important

The former Article 390 regime under the 1985 Civil Transactions Law gave courts substantial power to adjust agreed compensation.

The new Article 340 makes the grounds for judicial intervention more explicit.

Therefore:

Contractual freedom exists, but agreed compensation is not completely immune from judicial proportionality review.

This is especially important in:

construction contracts;

EPC contracts;

infrastructure agreements;

real-estate development;

supply contracts;

technology contracts;

delay claims.

The new law expressly identifies excessiveness, partial performance and creditor contribution as grounds relevant to reduction.

15. Proportionality and Partial Performance

Suppose a contractor completes 90% of the work but fails to complete the final 10%.

A contractual clause might prescribe AED 2 million compensation for non-completion.

The court is not necessarily required to treat the breach as though the contractor performed nothing.

Article 340 expressly recognises partial performance as a basis for reducing agreed compensation.

Thus:

Greater performance may justify a smaller agreed-compensation award.

16. Proportionality and Excessive Compensation

Suppose:

actual contractual exposure is relatively small;

the agreed compensation is extraordinarily high;

the debtor proves that the assessment was excessive.

Article 340 allows judicial reduction.

This protects against compensation becoming disconnected from the legally relevant consequences of the breach.

17. Proportionality and Fraud/Gross Fault

The current law also creates an important opposite rule.

Where the creditor proves fraud or gross fault by the debtor, the creditor may claim more than the agreed compensation.

Therefore:

Ordinary breach

→ agreed compensation framework.

Excessive agreed amount

→ possible reduction.

Partial performance

→ possible reduction.

Creditor's contributory fault

→ possible reduction/denial.

Debtor's fraud or gross fault

→ potentially greater compensation.

This is a sophisticated proportionality model.

18. Proportionality and Specific Performance

Civil remedies are not always limited to money.

The current Article 256 permits the court, depending on circumstances and at the injured party's request, to order:

restoration of the status quo ante;

performance of a specific matter connected with the harmful act;

installment compensation;

periodic income.

The law also permits reconsideration of compensation where circumstances change or damage aggravates.

Thus, proportionality can concern the form of remedy, not merely its monetary amount.

19. Continuing Damage

Suppose a person's injury initially appears to be worth AED 200,000.

Later, the damage materially worsens.

The current law permits mechanisms for reconsideration of compensation in appropriate circumstances, including aggravation of damage.

This prevents an early assessment from necessarily becoming unfair where the damage later develops.

20. Proportionality in Tort

The basic tort analysis is:

Wrongful act → damage → causation → liability → compensation

The compensation should correspond to the legally attributable consequences.

The court should avoid:

compensating nonexistent loss;

compensating the same loss twice;

imposing liability for unrelated consequences;

awarding purely speculative losses without adequate proof.

21. Proportionality in Contract

Contractual proportionality may arise from:

non-performance;

delayed performance;

defective performance;

partial performance;

termination;

agreed compensation;

restitution;

mitigation.

The contractual remedy should correspond to the nature and consequences of the breach.

22. Proportionality and Mitigation

An injured party should not normally be permitted to deliberately increase damage and then transfer the resulting avoidable loss entirely to the defendant.

For example:

A supplier delivers defective equipment.

The buyer discovers the defect but deliberately leaves the equipment exposed to additional foreseeable damage.

The court may examine whether the additional loss was caused by the original breach or aggravated by the claimant.

This principle is expressly reflected in the current rules on contributory conduct.

23. Proportionality and Double Recovery

A claimant should not ordinarily receive two compensatory awards for the same injury merely because the loss can be described using different legal labels.

For example:

AED 500,000 property loss should not become AED 1 million merely by describing the same loss as both “direct damage” and “lost opportunity.”

The court must identify the actual legally compensable injury.

24. Proportionality and Insurance

Insurance creates another proportionality issue.

The court may need to distinguish:

actual loss;

insurance payment;

contractual insurance rights;

third-party liability;

subrogation.

The claimant should not ordinarily receive a windfall exceeding the legally recognised loss merely because several recovery mechanisms exist.

25. Proportionality in Construction Disputes

Construction disputes are one of the most important areas.

Suppose:

contractor causes 40 days of delay;

employer causes 20 days;

force majeure causes 10 days;

10 days have no established cause.

The court or tribunal may have to determine:

which delay is compensable;

whether delays overlap;

whether contractual extension-of-time provisions apply;

whether agreed compensation should be reduced;

whether employer conduct contributed to loss.

Article 340 is especially relevant to agreed compensation clauses in current-law construction disputes.

26. CASE LAW

Case 1: UAE Supreme Court Case No. 370 of Judicial Year 20

Subject

Agreed compensation / penalty clause.

Principle

The UAE Supreme Court held under the former Article 390 regime that a contractual agreed-compensation clause generally means that the parties have predetermined the assessment of damage, so the creditor does not ordinarily have to prove the amount of damage initially.

However, the debtor could seek judicial reduction where the agreed compensation was excessive compared with the actual harm.

The case involved agreed compensation connected with professional/engineering services.

Proportionality significance

The case demonstrates the classic UAE principle:

Contractual certainty is respected, but compensation can be adjusted to avoid disproportionate recovery.

Historical status

This case was decided under the 1985 Civil Transactions Law, particularly former Article 390. It should therefore be used as historical authority when explaining the development of current Article 340.

27. Case 2: Dubai Court of Cassation Case No. 155 of 2012

Subject

Assessment of damages.

The Dubai Court of Cassation explained, under the former Civil Transactions Law, that where compensation was not predetermined by law or contract, the judge assessed compensation by reference to the actual damage suffered.

The principle has been cited in subsequent UAE jurisprudence concerning damages.

Proportionality significance

The case establishes the relationship:

Actual damage → judicial assessment → proportionate compensation.

Historical status

The decision arose under the former 1985 Civil Transactions Law.

28. Case 3: Dubai Court of Cassation Case No. 33 of 2019

Subject

Civil liability.

The Dubai Court of Cassation stated that contractual or tortious liability requires the relevant elements of:

breach/fault;

damage; and

causation.

The case has subsequently been cited in DIFC litigation discussing UAE civil-law liability.

Proportionality significance

A person should not be subjected to compensatory liability without establishing the necessary causal connection between the legally relevant conduct and the damage.

29. Case 4: UAE Court of Cassation Civil Cassation No. 880 of 2021

Subject

Future damage and loss of opportunity.

The UAE Court of Cassation recognised that compensation may extend to certain future damage and that a genuine lost opportunity can be compensable where the relevant requirements are established.

The Court also recognised additional compensation for material damage outside blood money where the required elements were proven.

Proportionality significance

The case illustrates that proportionality does not mean limiting compensation only to damage that has already physically occurred.

The real question is:

What legally established harm resulted from the wrongful conduct?

30. Case 5: Dubai Court of Cassation Appeal No. 309 of 2016

Subject

Concurrent faults and joint liability.

The case was subsequently discussed by the ADGM Court in Union Properties PJSC v Trinkler & Partners Ltd & Others.

The Dubai Court of Cassation explained that joint liability for compensation can arise where:

each person committed a fault;

each fault contributed to the damage; and

the relevant legal conditions for joint liability are satisfied.

The later ADGM judgment records this UAE-law analysis.

Proportionality significance

This authority demonstrates the difference between:

individual contribution

and

joint liability toward the injured party.

31. Case 6: Dubai Court of Cassation Commercial Appeal No. 941 of 2019

Subject

Unauthorized banking transactions and civil liability.

The case involved unauthorised bank transfers and the question of contractual and tortious responsibility.

The decision is relevant to the principle that liability depends on the legally established breach, damage and causal connection rather than simply the existence of a financial loss.

Proportionality significance

The compensation must correspond to the damage actually attributable to the defendant's failure to exercise the required precautions.

Historical status

This case was decided under the former UAE Civil Transactions Law.

32. Case 7: Dubai Court of Cassation Judgment No. 377 of 2025

Subject

Medical negligence and compensation.

The case involved a medical-negligence claim in which the claimant sought substantial compensation following physical injury.

The Dubai Court of Cassation rejected the proposition that the statutory framework concerning blood money or assessed compensation necessarily prevented additional compensation for proven material and moral harm.

The judgment recognised the relevance of material and moral consequences arising from physical injury.

Proportionality significance

Compensation should correspond to the complete legally compensable consequences of the injury, rather than being artificially restricted where additional damage is established.

This principle is consistent with the direction of the new Civil Transactions Law, which expressly permits additional compensation for material and moral harm not covered by blood money or assessed compensation.

33. Case 8: Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation Commercial Appeal No. 790 of 2013

Subject

Liquidated damages following termination.

The Abu Dhabi Court of Cassation examined whether an agreed/liquidated-damages provision could continue to operate after contractual termination.

The case is significant because it developed the analysis beyond the simplistic proposition that termination automatically eliminates every contractual compensation provision.

Proportionality significance

The court must identify:

the nature of the contractual obligation;

the reason for termination;

the breach;

the purpose of the agreed compensation;

whether the compensation clause remains legally connected to the relevant breach.

Historical status

This case was decided under the former 1985 Civil Transactions Law.

34. Case 9: BAM Higgs & Hill LLC v Affan Innovative Structures LLC & Amer Affan – DIFC CFI 106/2021

This is a DIFC case, so it is not binding on mainland UAE courts.

The DIFC Court considered UAE Civil Transactions Law provisions on compensation and referred to Dubai Court of Cassation authorities, including Case No. 155/2012.

The judgment noted the former Article 389 principle that, where damages were not fixed by law or contract, the judge assessed them in proportion to the actual prejudice sustained. It also discussed Dubai Cassation Case No. 33/2019 concerning breach, damage and causation.

Proportionality significance

It provides a useful modern illustration of how UAE civil-law damages principles have been analysed in a sophisticated commercial dispute.

35. Case 10: Sky News Arabia FZ-LLC v Kassab Media FZ (LLC) – DIFC CFI 067/2018

This is also a DIFC authority.

The dispute concerned minimum guaranteed payments and whether they constituted a penalty subject to the former Article 390 of the UAE Civil Code.

The Court distinguished between:

an amount genuinely representing contractual consideration; and

an amount designed to compensate for breach.

It also discussed UAE Supreme Court Case No. 370/20 concerning agreed compensation.

Proportionality significance

The first question is not merely:

“Is this amount large?”

It is:

“What is the legal nature and purpose of this payment?”

Only after characterising the payment can the court determine whether proportionality controls concerning agreed damages apply.

36. Case-Law Revision Table

37. Important Distinction: Proportionality vs Punishment

Civil damages are generally compensatory.

Therefore:

Civil compensation is principally directed toward repairing legally recognised loss, not punishing the defendant in the criminal-law sense.

This distinguishes:

Civil remedy

Compensation/restoration.

Criminal sanction

Punishment for an offence.

Administrative sanction

Regulatory enforcement.

However, a civil statute may impose specific consequences that have a deterrent or protective function.

The exact legal nature of the remedy must therefore be identified.

38. Proportionality and Civil Sanctions

“Civil sanctions” may include consequences such as:

damages;

restitution;

termination;

specific performance;

reduction of agreed compensation;

invalidity;

restoration;

loss of contractual benefit;

enforcement consequences.

The court should apply the consequence authorised by the applicable law and proportionate to the legally relevant circumstances.

39. Proportionality and Invalidity

Invalidity is different from damages.

For example:

If a statutory provision declares a particular agreement void, the court does not necessarily “reduce” the agreement to a smaller amount.

Instead:

Violation of mandatory rule → statutory consequence → possible nullity

Therefore proportionality cannot be used to rewrite every invalid transaction.

40. Proportionality and Termination

Termination may produce:

restitution;

return of property;

repayment of money;

damages;

agreed compensation;

interest where legally available.

The court must determine which consequences follow from the applicable legal and contractual framework.

A party should not automatically receive every conceivable remedy simultaneously.

41. Proportionality and Unjust Enrichment

Compensation and unjust enrichment are different concepts.

Compensation

Repairs legally established damage.

Unjust enrichment

Restores a benefit retained without sufficient legal basis.

The remedy should correspond to the relevant legal wrong.

42. Proportionality in Professional Negligence

Suppose a professional makes a minor procedural error but the claimant alleges AED 10 million in business losses.

The court must examine:

professional duty;

actual breach;

causal relationship;

foreseeability/legal causation;

evidence of loss;

claimant's own conduct.

The existence of professional error does not automatically establish liability for every financial consequence claimed.

43. Proportionality in Medical Negligence

Medical cases may involve:

physical injury;

medical expenses;

lost earnings;

permanent disability;

moral harm;

future expenses.

The award must correspond to the legally established consequences.

The 2025 Civil Transactions Law expressly recognises the possibility of additional material and moral damages in appropriate injury/death cases where those harms are not covered by blood money or assessed compensation.

44. Proportionality in Property Damage

Suppose a contractor damages a building.

The claimant may claim:

repair costs;

loss of use;

associated proven losses.

But the claimant cannot ordinarily transform a repairable AED 100,000 loss into an unlimited claim unrelated to the damage.

The central question is:

What damage was actually caused and legally attributable to the defendant?

45. Proportionality and Evidence

Evidence is essential.

The claimant should establish:

the legal right;

breach/wrongful conduct;

damage;

causation;

amount of loss.

The defendant may establish:

absence of causation;

contributory fault;

partial performance;

excessive agreed compensation;

mitigation;

intervening cause.

Thus:

Proportionality depends heavily on proof.

46. Proportionality and Expert Evidence

Experts can be particularly important in:

construction;

engineering;

accounting;

medical negligence;

valuation;

property damage;

business interruption.

An expert may determine:

percentage of delay;

repair cost;

loss of profit;

technical causation;

contribution of different parties.

The court ultimately decides the legal consequence, but technical evidence can help establish the factual basis for proportionality.

47. Current Article 253 Formula

A useful examination formula is:

M + C + I = P

Where:

M = Multiple responsible persons
C = Contribution of each person
I = Individual contribution of injured party
P = Proportionate compensation

But the court may depart from simple proportional allocation where the law permits equal or joint-and-several liability.

48. Current Article 340 Formula

Remember:

A-P-C-F

A = Agreed compensation
P = Partial performance → possible reduction
C = Creditor's contribution → possible reduction
F = Fraud/gross fault → possible increase beyond agreed amount

Article 340 also makes contrary contractual arrangements void.

49. Five-Step Judicial Test for Proportionality

A court can conceptually approach a damages dispute through:

Step 1 — Identify the legal wrong

Was there:

breach?

tort?

statutory violation?

Step 2 — Identify the damage

What actual loss occurred?

Step 3 — Establish causation

Which losses were caused by the defendant?

Step 4 — Allocate contribution

Did:

multiple defendants contribute?

claimant contribute?

partial performance occur?

Step 5 — Select proportionate remedy

Possible result:

full compensation;

reduced compensation;

no compensation;

joint and several liability;

specific performance;

restitution;

adjusted agreed compensation.

50. Practical Example

A construction contract contains agreed delay compensation of:

AED 1 million.

The project is delayed.

Evidence establishes:

contractor responsible for 50% of delay;

employer responsible for 30%;

force majeure responsible for 20%;

contractor completed most of the work;

employer contributed to part of the delay.

Under the current Article 340 framework, the court would have to consider the agreed-compensation clause together with:

whether the assessment is excessive;

partial performance;

creditor contribution;

the actual contractual circumstances.

The result should not be determined merely by multiplying the contractual daily rate by every calendar day.

51. Proportionality and Full Compensation

Proportionality does not mean under-compensation.

The principle is:

The claimant should receive the compensation legally justified by the proven harm, but should not receive a windfall unrelated to that harm.

This is why proportionality and full compensation are not necessarily contradictory.

They operate together:

Full compensation for legally established loss

No compensation for unrelated/excessive loss

=

Proportionate compensation

52. Proportionality and Current UAE Law

The new Civil Transactions Law demonstrates a balanced approach.

It simultaneously:

recognises full compensation;

recognises moral damage;

allows compensation for future damage in appropriate cases;

permits reassessment where damage worsens;

allocates liability among multiple wrongdoers;

recognises contributory fault;

permits agreed compensation;

permits reduction of excessive agreed compensation;

permits reduction for partial performance;

permits adjustment for creditor fault;

permits additional compensation for fraud or gross fault.

The government's explanation of the new law specifically emphasises the combination of blood money/assessed compensation with additional material or moral damages where those harms are not fully covered.

53. Historical vs Current Law

This distinction is essential in legal research.

Historical authorities

Many important UAE cases concerning:

Article 282;

Article 389;

Article 390;

were decided under the 1985 Civil Transactions Law.

Current law

From 1 June 2026, Federal Decree-Law No. 25 of 2025 applies and the former 1985 law was repealed.

Therefore, older case law remains useful for understanding judicial reasoning and continuity, but its former article numbers should not be presented as the current statutory provisions without qualification.

54. Mainland vs DIFC

Another important examination distinction:

Mainland UAE courts

Apply federal UAE civil legislation together with applicable emirate-specific legislation.

DIFC Courts

Operate under the DIFC's own statutory framework and common-law-influenced system.

Therefore, cases such as:

BAM Higgs & Hill v Affan;

Sky News Arabia v Kassab;

should be treated as DIFC authorities, not binding precedents for mainland UAE courts.

They are useful for comparative understanding of how UAE civil-law principles have been interpreted.

55. Major Principles to Remember

Principle 1

Compensation should correspond to legally established loss.

Principle 2

Causation limits the scope of compensation.

Principle 3

Multiple wrongdoers may have liability allocated proportionately.

Principle 4

The claimant's own contribution may reduce compensation.

Principle 5

Joint-and-several liability may nevertheless be ordered where legally appropriate.

Principle 6

Agreed compensation is recognised but remains subject to Article 340 controls.

Principle 7

Partial performance can reduce agreed compensation.

Principle 8

Fraud or gross fault can justify compensation above the agreed amount.

Principle 9

Material and moral damages may both be compensable.

Principle 10

The remedy should correspond to the legal nature of the wrong.

56. Examination Revision Table

57. One-Line Exam Answer

Proportionality in UAE civil law requires civil liability and damages to correspond to the legally established harm, causal contribution and degree of responsibility, while allowing judicial adjustment for contributory fault, excessive agreed compensation, partial performance and other circumstances recognised by law.

58. Memory Formula

D-C-F-P-R

D = Damage
C = Causation
F = Fault/contribution
P = Proportional allocation
R = Appropriate remedy

For contractual agreed compensation:

A-P-C-F

A = Agreed compensation
P = Partial performance
C = Creditor contribution
F = Fraud/gross fault

59. Conclusion

The UAE approach to proportionality in civil sanctions and damages attempts to balance full compensation, contractual freedom, fairness and prevention of excessive recovery.

The current Civil Transactions Law makes this particularly clear.

Article 253 expressly addresses proportional allocation among multiple responsible persons and the effect of the injured party's contribution. Article 255 links compensation to the loss and naturally resulting lost profit. Article 256 permits different forms and later reassessment of compensation. Article 340 creates a structured system for judicial control of agreed compensation.

The central principle can therefore be remembered as:

“Compensation should repair the legally proven harm in proportion to the responsibility that caused it, while preventing both under-compensation and unjustified over-compensation.”