Most of the remedies discussed in this book are personal remedies (apart from the proprietary consequences of rescission). Personal remedies, as the name suggests, are directed at the person of the defendant. The defendant must comply with the court order. By contrast, proprietary remedies are directed at property to which the defendant holds title, not to the person.

Proprietary remedies are difficult to allocate on a functional basis. We have not attempted to do so, as the rationales behind the imposition of proprietary remedies vary, and the criteria for their award are uncertain and contested.

It should be noted at the outset that this chapter does not purport to provide an exhaustive account of proprietary remedies. It is presumed that the reader already has a knowledge of trust law and the principles governing the creation of trusts and equitable liens. What follows is an overview from a remedies perspective.

The availability of proprietary remedies in common law is limited. Even where the defendant has committed a proprietary tort, the common law tends to award damages as a remedy. There is no rei vindicatio, or ability of a plaintiff to demand the return of property from a defendant, at common law. Consequently, the proprietary remedies we discuss in this chapter are equitable in origin.

While it is important to be able to read and interpret individual papers, the results of a single study are never going to provide the complete answer to a question. To move towards this, we need to review the literature more widely. There can be a number of reasons for doing this, some of which require a more comprehensive approach than others. If the aim is simply to increase our personal understanding of a new area, then a few papers might provide adequate background material. Traditional narrative reviews have value for exploring areas of uncertainty or novelty but give less emphasis to complete coverage of the literature and tend to be more qualitative, so it is harder to scrutinise them for flaws. Scoping reviews are more systematic but still exploratory. They are conducted to identify the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, clarify key concepts and identify the knowledge gaps. In contrast, a major decision regarding policy or practice should be based on a systematic review and perhaps a meta-analysis of all the relevant literature, and it is this approach that we focus on here.

A contract may be breached by one party (the defendant) through defective performance, delayed performance, or a total failure to perform. If the contract breached is enforceable at common law, the innocent party (the plaintiff) can generally claim common law damages for any loss suffered as a result of the breach. The assessment of such damages and the attribution of responsibility for such loss are generally governed by the rules discussed in Chs 2 to 4 for civil wrongs in general. Specific rules for breach of contract are discussed in this chapter: the assessment of damages and the attribution of responsibility.

The global pandemic of COVID-19 that began in late 2019 highlighted the importance of rapid and thorough investigations of outbreaks. The response to COVID-19 was at a scale not previously seen, involving all sectors of society, including government and private industry. To control and minimise the impact of COVID-19, huge and costly efforts were required to effectively coordinate many different organisations, many of which were not primarily concerned with public health. This type of re-focusing of resources is common in outbreak and public health emergency settings, but is rarely seen at such scale.In this chapter we look at outbreak investigation in more detail and, in doing so, focus on infectious diseases, although not exclusively, because other agents such as toxins and chemicals can also result in ‘outbreaks’ of non-communicable intoxications, injuries and cancer.

When we speak of prevention in the context of public health, we usually think of what is sometimes called ‘primary prevention’, which aims to prevent disease from occurring in the first place; that is, to reduce the incidence of disease. Vaccination against childhood infectious diseases is a good example of primary prevention, as is the use of sunscreen to prevent the development of skin cancer. However, somewhat confusingly, the term ‘prevention’ is also used to describe other strategies to control disease. One of these is the use of screening to advance diagnosis to a point at which intervention is more effective, often described as ‘secondary prevention’. What is sometimes called ‘tertiary prevention’ is even more remote from the everyday concept of prevention, usually implying efforts to limit disease progression or the provision of better rehabilitation to enhance quality of life among those who have been diagnosed with a disease.

The victim of a tort can generally claim compensatory damages for any loss suffered as a result of the tort. The assessment of such damages and the attribution of responsibility for such loss are generally governed by the rules discussed in Chs 2 to 4 for civil wrongs in general. Specific rules for tort are discussed in this chapter: the assessment of damages and the attribution of responsibility. The assessment of compensatory damages for personal injury, which are usually claimed in tort, is discussed.

In this chapter, we consider exemplary damages and aggravated damages, remedies with a strong vindicatory flavour, as recognised by the High Court of Australia in Lewis v Australian Capital Territory.

Exemplary damages vindicate the plaintiff’s interests, but also explicitly punish the defendant for the wrong in question. Punishment is not commonly recognised as a central aim of private law. Some commentators have argued that it should not be part of private law. However, exemplary damages are said to validate the plaintiff’s feelings of hurt and anger arising from the contumelious nature of the defendant’s wrong. Such damages also perform a vindicatory function. The fact that the law punishes a defendant for the manner of his interference with the plaintiff’s interests signals the importance of those interests.

This chapter explores rules on compensation that are peculiar to cases involving personal injury or death. The wrongful act is usually a tort, but it may also be a breach of contract1 or a statutory wrong. It is assumed that the claim is not excluded by statute; some exclusions are mentioned. This chapter does not discuss rules on compensation that apply to personal injury as well as other types of harm. Those rules are discussed in Part 1 and in the other chapters of Part 2. Furthermore, this chapter, like the rest of Part 2, is concerned only with ‘normal’ compensation. Aggravated damages, which may be awarded in cases of personal injury (and other cases), are discussed in Ch 15.

In the preceding chapters we have covered the core principles and methods of epidemiology and have shown you some of the main areas where epidemiological evidence is crucial for policy and planning. You will also have gained a sense of the breadth and depth of the subject from the examples throughout the book. To finish, we take a broader look at the role of epidemiological practice and logic in improving health. There is a growing desire for public health and medical research to be ‘translational’; that is, directly applicable to a population or patient. The process, whereby research evidence is used to change practice or policy, is known as ‘translation’, and the research outputs from epidemiology are critical at all stages (see Box 16.2); indeed, epidemiology has been described as ‘the epicenter of translational science’ (Hiatt, 2010).

The overarching goal of public health is to maximise the health of the population, and to achieve this we need evidence about what works and what does not work. Good studies are difficult to design and implement, and interpretation of their results and conclusions is not always as straightforward as we might hope. How, then, can we make the best use of this information? In the next three chapters we look at ways to identify, appraise, integrate and interpret the literature to generate the evidence we need to inform policy and practice. In this chapter we focus on interpreting the results from a single study, because if they are not valid they will be of limited value. The central question we have to answer when we read a study report is, ‘Are the results of the study valid?’

Confounding refers to a mixing or muddling of effects that can occur when the relationship we are interested in is confused by the effect of something else. It arises when the groups we are comparing are not completely exchangeable and so differ with respect to factors other than their exposure status. If one (or more) of these other factors is a cause of both the exposure and the outcome, then some or all of an observed association between the exposure and outcome may be due to that factor.