1. Introduction

Self-correcting energy policies refer to energy policies and regulatory frameworks designed to identify their own shortcomings, evaluate actual outcomes, and make necessary adjustments without waiting for a complete institutional or legislative overhaul.

In energy law, this concept is important because electricity markets, renewable energy technologies, energy prices, environmental obligations, and consumer requirements change continuously. A policy that works effectively under one set of circumstances may become inadequate when fuel prices rise, electricity demand increases, renewable generation expands, or the power grid faces reliability problems.

Self-correction therefore means creating a systematic process through which energy governance learns from experience and responds to evidence.

For example, if a government introduces a subsidy for rooftop solar installations but discovers that the subsidy disproportionately benefits wealthier households, a self-correcting framework could revise eligibility conditions, improve access to financing, and redirect assistance towards low-income consumers.

The concept is an analytical framework rather than a universally recognised, standalone legal doctrine. Its legal foundations can be found in administrative law, statutory review requirements, judicial review, environmental regulation, electricity tariff regulation, public participation, and principles of accountability.

2. Meaning and essential characteristics

A self-correcting energy policy combines five principal functions:

1. Monitoring

Collecting information about electricity supply, tariffs, emissions, renewable generation, outages, and consumer complaints.

2. Evaluation

Comparing actual performance with statutory duties, policy objectives, and regulatory standards.

3. Identification of failure

Detecting ineffective subsidies, unreasonable tariffs, grid bottlenecks, environmental harm, or unequal access.

4. Corrective intervention

Revising regulations, tariff structures, procurement conditions, compliance requirements, or implementation arrangements within lawful authority.

5. Reassessment

Measuring whether the correction has solved the original problem without creating new legal, financial, environmental, or social difficulties.

The essential feature is a feedback loop: evidence leads to evaluation, evaluation leads to a lawful response, and the response is assessed again.

3. Legal foundations of self-correcting energy policies

A. Adaptive regulation

Adaptive regulation allows regulatory arrangements to evolve as evidence and circumstances change. In the electricity sector, this may involve reviewing tariff methodologies, grid codes, renewable-energy integration rules, and reliability standards.

A regulator may discover that an existing tariff structure no longer reflects the costs of supplying electricity. Subject to the governing statute, consultation requirements, and procedural safeguards, it may revise the methodology to improve cost recovery and protect consumers.

However, adaptation is not unrestricted discretion. Regulatory decisions must remain within the authority granted by legislation, comply with applicable procedures, and provide a rational explanation for the changes.

B. Evidence-based policymaking

A self-correcting policy requires reliable evidence rather than assumptions alone. Relevant indicators may include:

Electricity availability and frequency of outages.

Cost of electricity and affordability for households.

Renewable-energy generation and curtailment.

Greenhouse-gas emissions and environmental compliance.

Transmission and distribution losses.

Performance of publicly funded energy programmes.

If a policy fails to achieve its stated objectives, the government or regulator should investigate the reasons before deciding whether to amend, replace, or retain it.

C. Administrative accountability

Administrative law provides mechanisms for correcting unlawful or irrational decisions. Courts may review regulatory action where public authorities exceed their powers, disregard mandatory considerations, violate procedural fairness, or act arbitrarily.

Judicial review does not ordinarily make courts the primary energy policymakers. Instead, it helps ensure that policy decisions comply with legal requirements.

D. Transparency and public participation

Consumers, generators, distribution companies, environmental organisations, and other affected parties can identify policy failures that official monitoring may overlook.

Public consultation, publication of regulatory data, reasoned orders, and accessible complaint mechanisms make corrective action more accountable.

E. Periodic statutory review

Legislation can expressly require authorities to review a policy, report on its performance, or reconsider regulatory standards at specified intervals. Such requirements institutionalise learning and reduce the risk that ineffective policies remain in place indefinitely.

4. Important case laws relating to self-correcting energy policies

The following judgments do not all use the expression “self-correcting energy policies.” Rather, they establish legal principles that support review, adaptation, accountability, and correction in energy and environmental governance.

Case 1: Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC 647

Court: Supreme Court of India

Facts: The case concerned environmental pollution caused by tanneries in Tamil Nadu, including contamination associated with industrial effluents.

Legal issue: How should economic and industrial activity be regulated when it threatens environmental protection and sustainable development?

Judgment and principle: The Supreme Court recognised the precautionary principle and the polluter-pays principle as part of Indian environmental law. Environmental authorities must take preventive measures against serious environmental risks, and polluters may be required to bear the costs of remediation.

Indian Kanoon

+1

Connection with self-correcting energy policies: Energy policies frequently involve environmental trade-offs, particularly in coal-based electricity generation, oil and gas extraction, hydropower, and renewable-energy infrastructure.

A self-correcting policy informed by this judgment would:

Monitor emissions and environmental damage.

Review permits and environmental safeguards when significant risks emerge.

Require appropriate pollution-control measures.

Provide for restoration and compensation where legally justified.

Legal significance: The case supports preventive and corrective environmental governance. It does not establish an unrestricted power to rewrite energy policies; corrective measures must operate under applicable law.

Case 2: A.P. Pollution Control Board v. Prof. M.V. Nayudu (1999) 2 SCC 718

Court: Supreme Court of India

Facts: The dispute concerned environmental clearance for an industrial activity and the assessment of potential risks to a drinking-water source.

Legal issue: How should public authorities make environmental decisions when scientific evidence is uncertain or technical questions are complex?

Judgment and principle: The Supreme Court discussed the precautionary principle, scientific uncertainty, and the need for competent technical assessment in environmental decision-making.

Indian Kanoon

+1

Connection with self-correcting energy policies: Energy planning involves technical uncertainties concerning emissions, electricity demand, storage, nuclear safety, hydrological conditions, and the reliability of renewable generation.

For example, if evidence indicates that a power project may create an unforeseen environmental risk, the responsible authority should reassess the evidence and consider legally available safeguards rather than mechanically continuing with an outdated assessment.

Legal significance: The judgment supports evidence-sensitive decision-making and institutional learning. It also highlights the importance of scientific expertise in correcting regulatory mistakes.

Case 3: Energy Watchdog v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2017) 14 SCC 80

Court: Supreme Court of India

Facts: The case involved power purchase agreements and claims by generating companies that changes in Indonesian coal prices justified relief under force majeure or the change-in-law provisions.

Legal issue: Could higher fuel costs be used to obtain tariff relief outside the contractual and regulatory framework?

Judgment and principle: The Supreme Court examined the contractual allocation of risk, the meaning of force majeure, and the statutory framework governing electricity tariffs. The Court did not permit a general increase in fuel costs to be treated automatically as force majeure where the relevant contractual requirements were not satisfied.

Connection with self-correcting energy policies: Electricity prices may change substantially because of fuel-market volatility. A self-correcting policy should distinguish between:

Risks already allocated under power purchase agreements.

Events covered by valid change-in-law provisions.

Exceptional circumstances that satisfy applicable contractual requirements.

Ordinary commercial risks that remain with the party bearing them.

If the existing framework creates persistent problems, policymakers may consider prospective amendments or lawful regulatory reforms. They cannot simply disregard existing contracts or statutory limits in the name of policy correction.

Legal significance: This judgment illustrates that adaptation must occur within established legal rules. Self-correction cannot become arbitrary interference with contractual obligations or regulated tariffs.

Case 4: PTC India Ltd. v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission (2010) 4 SCC 603

Court: Supreme Court of India

Legal issue: What is the legal status of regulations made by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, and how do those regulations interact with statutory appellate review?

Judgment and principle: The Supreme Court recognised the statutory character of regulations made under the Electricity Act, 2003 and distinguished challenges to regulations from appeals against individual regulatory orders.

Sci API

Connection with self-correcting energy policies: Energy regulators need a legally valid mechanism to update regulatory frameworks as markets and technology evolve. However, regulatory rules must be made within delegated authority and in accordance with the applicable statutory process.

For instance, a regulator considering changes to market or grid-related rules must distinguish between:

Amending a regulation through the legally prescribed process.

Applying an existing regulation to a particular dispute.

Correcting an individual order through an available review or appellate mechanism.

These processes are not interchangeable.

Legal significance: The case demonstrates that institutional self-correction requires a clear legal allocation of powers and procedures.

Case 5: Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Essar Power Ltd. (2008) 4 SCC 755

Court: Supreme Court of India

Legal issue: The dispute concerned the jurisdiction of electricity regulatory authorities in relation to disputes arising from power purchase arrangements.

Judgment and principle: The Supreme Court examined the jurisdiction conferred on electricity regulatory commissions by the Electricity Act, 2003, including the statutory conditions governing their authority over disputes.

Connection with self-correcting energy policies: A corrective policy is only effective if the institution implementing it has the legal power to act. Regulators, utilities, ministries, and appellate bodies have different functions.

If a tariff dispute reveals a systemic problem, the competent commission may exercise the powers conferred on it by statute. It cannot assume powers reserved for another authority simply because a policy outcome appears desirable.

Legal significance: The case illustrates that self-correction depends on institutional competence, statutory jurisdiction, and proper allocation of regulatory responsibilities.

Case 6: T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 267

Court: Supreme Court of India

Background: This case developed into extensive continuing proceedings concerning forest conservation and environmental administration.

Judgment and principle: The Supreme Court used continuing judicial supervision to address implementation and compliance issues relating to forest protection.

Connection with self-correcting energy policies: Long-term environmental and energy projects may produce effects that cannot be fully assessed at the initial approval stage. Continuing monitoring can identify non-compliance or new environmental concerns after a decision has been made.

A comparable regulatory structure may involve periodic reporting, compliance inspections, environmental audits, and reassessment where legally required.

Legal significance: The case illustrates how continuing oversight can support correction after an initial decision. Such supervision remains exceptional and depends on the court's jurisdiction and the circumstances of the proceedings.

5. Statutory framework in India

The strongest express basis for policy correction in the Indian electricity sector is found in the Electricity Act, 2003.

India Code

+1

Statutory reference: Electricity Act, 2003 — India Code.

These provisions demonstrate that energy governance is not necessarily static. Policy review, tariff regulation, and renewable-energy promotion can respond to changing circumstances, but each authority must exercise its powers within the relevant statutory limits.

The Energy Conservation Act, 2001 also provides a framework for promoting energy efficiency and conservation. Its implementation can support corrective action when monitoring reveals that existing efficiency measures are not delivering their intended results.

India Code

6. Practical applications of self-correcting energy policies

A. Renewable-energy subsidies

If subsidies fail to encourage installations among intended beneficiaries, authorities can assess participation data, identify administrative barriers, and revise eligibility or payment procedures under applicable law.

B. Grid reliability

If recurring outages reveal weaknesses in transmission or distribution, system operators and regulators can investigate performance, require corrective plans where authorised, and reassess reliability standards.

C. Smart-meter regulation

If billing disputes or inaccurate readings increase after smart-meter deployment, authorities can examine meter accuracy, data handling, complaint resolution, and consumer safeguards.

D. Environmental compliance

If monitoring detects excessive emissions, regulators can enforce applicable standards, require corrective measures, and reassess compliance through legally authorised procedures.

7. A model for implementing self-correcting energy policies

A practical governance model can be organised into six stages.

#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_{font-family:-apple-system-body,ui-sans-serif,-apple-system,system-ui,"Segoe UI",Helvetica,"Apple Color Emoji",Arial,sans-serif,"Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol";font-size:16px;fill:rgb(13, 13, 13);}@keyframes edge-animation-frame{from{stroke-dashoffset:0;}}@keyframes dash{to{stroke-dashoffset:0;}}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .edge-animation-slow{stroke-dasharray:9,5!important;stroke-dashoffset:900;animation:dash 50s linear infinite;stroke-linecap:round;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .edge-animation-fast{stroke-dasharray:9,5!important;stroke-dashoffset:900;animation:dash 20s linear infinite;stroke-linecap:round;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .error-icon{fill:rgb(243, 243, 243);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .error-text{fill:rgb(13, 13, 13);stroke:rgb(13, 13, 13);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .edge-thickness-normal{stroke-width:1px;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .edge-thickness-thick{stroke-width:3.5px;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .edge-pattern-solid{stroke-dasharray:0;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .edge-thickness-invisible{stroke-width:0;fill:none;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .edge-pattern-dashed{stroke-dasharray:3;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .edge-pattern-dotted{stroke-dasharray:2;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .marker{fill:rgb(143, 143, 143);stroke:rgb(143, 143, 143);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .marker.cross{stroke:rgb(143, 143, 143);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ svg{font-family:-apple-system-body,ui-sans-serif,-apple-system,system-ui,"Segoe UI",Helvetica,"Apple Color Emoji",Arial,sans-serif,"Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol";font-size:16px;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ p{margin:0;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .label{font-family:-apple-system-body,ui-sans-serif,-apple-system,system-ui,"Segoe UI",Helvetica,"Apple Color Emoji",Arial,sans-serif,"Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol";color:rgb(13, 13, 13);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .cluster-label text{fill:rgb(13, 13, 13);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .cluster-label span{color:rgb(13, 13, 13);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .cluster-label span p{background-color:transparent;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .label text,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ span{fill:rgb(13, 13, 13);color:rgb(13, 13, 13);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node rect,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node circle,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node ellipse,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node polygon,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node path{fill:rgb(222, 234, 251);stroke:rgb(83, 154, 248);stroke-width:1px;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .rough-node .label text,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node .label text,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .image-shape .label,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .icon-shape .label{text-anchor:middle;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node .katex path{fill:#000;stroke:#000;stroke-width:1px;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .rough-node .label,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node .label,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .image-shape .label,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .icon-shape .label{text-align:center;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node.clickable{cursor:pointer;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .root .anchor path{fill:rgb(143, 143, 143)!important;stroke-width:0;stroke:rgb(143, 143, 143);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .arrowheadPath{fill:rgb(143, 143, 143);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .edgePath .path{stroke:rgb(143, 143, 143);stroke-width:1px;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .flowchart-link{stroke:rgb(143, 143, 143);fill:none;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .edgeLabel{background-color:rgb(252, 252, 252);text-align:center;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .edgeLabel p{background-color:rgb(252, 252, 252);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .edgeLabel rect{opacity:0.5;background-color:rgb(252, 252, 252);fill:rgb(252, 252, 252);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .labelBkg{background-color:rgba(252, 252, 252, 0.5);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .cluster rect{fill:rgb(243, 243, 243);stroke:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1);stroke-width:1px;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .cluster text{fill:rgb(13, 13, 13);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .cluster span{color:rgb(13, 13, 13);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ div.mermaidTooltip{position:absolute;text-align:center;max-width:200px;padding:2px;font-family:-apple-system-body,ui-sans-serif,-apple-system,system-ui,"Segoe UI",Helvetica,"Apple Color Emoji",Arial,sans-serif,"Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol";font-size:12px;background:rgb(243, 243, 243);border:1px solid rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1);border-radius:2px;pointer-events:none;z-index:100;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .flowchartTitleText{text-anchor:middle;font-size:18px;fill:rgb(13, 13, 13);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ rect.text{fill:none;stroke-width:0;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .icon-shape,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .image-shape{background-color:rgb(252, 252, 252);text-align:center;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .icon-shape p,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .image-shape p{background-color:rgb(252, 252, 252);padding:2px;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .icon-shape .label rect,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .image-shape .label rect{opacity:0.5;background-color:rgb(252, 252, 252);fill:rgb(252, 252, 252);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .label-icon{display:inline-block;height:1em;overflow:visible;vertical-align:-0.125em;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node .label-icon path{fill:currentColor;stroke:revert;stroke-width:revert;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node .neo-node{stroke:rgb(83, 154, 248);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ [data-look="neo"].node rect,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ [data-look="neo"].cluster rect,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ [data-look="neo"].node polygon{stroke:url(#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_-gradient);filter:drop-shadow( 1px 2px 2px rgba(185,185,185,1));}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ [data-look="neo"].swimlane.cluster rect{filter:none;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ [data-look="neo"].node path{stroke:url(#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_-gradient);stroke-width:1px;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ [data-look="neo"].node .outer-path{filter:drop-shadow( 1px 2px 2px rgba(185,185,185,1));}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ [data-look="neo"].node .neo-line path{stroke:rgb(83, 154, 248);filter:none;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ [data-look="neo"].node circle{stroke:url(#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_-gradient);filter:drop-shadow( 1px 2px 2px rgba(185,185,185,1));}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ [data-look="neo"].node circle .state-start{fill:#000000;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ [data-look="neo"].icon-shape .icon{fill:url(#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_-gradient);filter:drop-shadow( 1px 2px 2px rgba(185,185,185,1));}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ [data-look="neo"].icon-shape .icon-neo path{stroke:url(#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_-gradient);filter:drop-shadow( 1px 2px 2px rgba(185,185,185,1));}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node text{font-size:14px;font-weight:600;letter-spacing:normal;fill:rgb(0, 79, 153);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .edgeLabels text{font-size:13px;font-weight:600;letter-spacing:-0.08px;fill:rgb(0, 79, 153);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node tspan[font-weight="normal"],#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .edgeLabels tspan[font-weight="normal"]{font-weight:600;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .edgeLabel .label rect{opacity:1;rx:13px;ry:13px;fill:rgb(245, 250, 255);stroke:rgb(206, 219, 229);stroke-width:1px;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node rect,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node circle,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node ellipse,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node polygon,#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node path{fill:rgb(229, 243, 255);stroke:rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.1);stroke-width:1px;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node rect{rx:16px;ry:16px;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .node.mermaid-decision .label-container{fill:rgb(245, 250, 255);stroke:rgb(206, 219, 229);stroke-dasharray:2,2;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .edgePaths .flowchart-link{stroke:rgb(143, 143, 143);stroke-width:1px;stroke-linecap:round;stroke-linejoin:round;}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ .marker{fill:rgb(143, 143, 143);stroke:rgb(143, 143, 143);}#chatgpt-mermaid-_r_ja_ :root{--mermaid-font-family:-apple-system-body,ui-sans-serif,-apple-system,system-ui,"Segoe UI",Helvetica,"Apple Color Emoji",Arial,sans-serif,"Segoe UI Emoji","Segoe UI Symbol";}Set legal objectivesCollect energy andenvironmental dataCompare outcomes withstandardsIs corrective action needed?Continue monitoringConsult affected stakeholdersAdopt a lawful correctivemeasureEvaluate the resultsNoYes

The framework should establish measurable indicators, identify the institution responsible for monitoring, specify when a review is triggered, and record the reasons for corrective decisions.

For example, a renewable-energy programme might be reviewed if deployment consistently falls below its stated targets. The review would distinguish between inadequate funding, delays in grid connections, weak consumer participation, and administrative obstacles. The response would then address the identified cause rather than simply changing the target.

8. Advantages and limitations

A particularly important distinction is between adaptive governance and arbitrary governance. A policy should change because evidence, legal requirements, or relevant circumstances justify the change—not simply because an authority wishes to reverse an earlier decision.

9. Legal safeguards for effective self-correction

A sound self-correcting energy framework should incorporate the following safeguards:

Legality: Corrective action must be authorised by legislation or another valid source of legal power.

Transparency: Authorities should disclose relevant evidence and explain material policy changes.

Procedural fairness: Consultation, notice, and hearing requirements should be followed where applicable.

Proportionality: Corrective measures should be appropriate to the problem and its seriousness.

Contractual certainty: Existing contractual rights and statutory change-in-law mechanisms must be respected.

Environmental responsibility: Policy adjustments should account for environmental risks and applicable legal duties.

Reviewability: Affected parties should have access to the appropriate statutory appeal or judicial-review mechanisms.

These safeguards allow policies to evolve without undermining the rule of law.

10. Conclusion

Self-correcting energy policies represent a model of energy governance in which monitoring, evaluation, accountability, and lawful adaptation are built into the policy process. They are especially relevant to electricity tariffs, renewable-energy deployment, grid reliability, environmental compliance, and consumer protection.

Indian legal principles provide important foundations for this approach. Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum supports precautionary and remedial environmental action; A.P. Pollution Control Board v. M.V. Nayudu emphasises scientific assessment under uncertainty; Energy Watchdog demonstrates the importance of contractual and statutory limits; and PTC India clarifies the legal character of electricity regulations.

The central lesson is that an effective energy policy must be capable of learning from failure while remaining accountable to law. Self-correction should improve policy performance, not create an excuse for arbitrary decision-making.

Academic note: “Self-correcting energy policies” is used here as a conceptual framework. The judgments discussed establish related legal principles rather than recognising that exact phrase as an independent cause of action or legal doctrine.