The Law Commission has published its final report on aggravated, exemplary and restitutionary damages, the most important recommendation of which is an expansion of the availability of exemplary damages.' The Report was preceded by two consultation papers, and this is no doubt indicative of the range of views held on the subject and the problems of reconciling them. Aggravated and exemplary damages have been a perennial source of controversy, since before the famous case of Rookes v Barnard.2 They raise not only problems of terminology, but also more fundamental problems concerning the relation between civil and criminal procedure, and the rationale for punishment and civil remedies. One source of difficulty may be that the issues tend to span different areas of practical expertise and research. Another may be that theoretical issues are lost in what appear to be matters of practice and procedure. Restitutionary damages are no less controversial. Under this name they are not a traditional remedy; the expression has emerged from the academic development of the law of restitution. Despite the academic attention they have received, it remains controversial to what extent they are found in the common law, how they are to be justified, and when they should be available.