Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 200

Summary: - Assessment of compensation. A factual matter within the independent purview of the judge of merits. Its criterion. The assessment must rest upon a cogent basis referable to its elements established in the case papers and its justifications, in which the basis of compensation is balanced against the reason for imposing it, so that it appears commensurate with the damage, neither less than nor exceeding it, and affords solace to the injured party according to the attendant circumstances, without exaggeration or extravagance turning it into unjust enrichment, and without parsimony that falls short of affording solace and indeed causes harm by increasing his pain and sorrow. - Compensation. Its purpose. To alleviate the injured party's pain, not to reopen his wounds. The challenged judgment's increase of compensation for moral damage from five thousand dinars to twenty-five thousand without stating cogent reasons for the increase and proportionality to the elements of damage. Vitiates it and requires its cassation. Rule: It is established—in the jurisprudence of this Court—that, although the assessment of compensation is a factual matter within the independent purview of the judge of merits, the criterion is that this assessment must rest upon a cogent basis referable to its elements established in the case papers and its justifications, by which the basis of compensation is balanced against the reason for imposing it, so that it appears commensurate with the damage, neither less than nor exceeding it, and affords solace to the injured party according to the attendant circumstances, without exaggeration or extravagance turning it into unjust enrichment, and also without parsimony that falls short of affording solace and indeed causes harm by increasing his pain and sorrow. Compensation is the alleviation of the injured party's pain, not the reopening of his wounds. Its assessment of actual attorney's fees must likewise be in light of the effort expended in the cases and at the two levels of litigation. That being so, it is apparent from the challenged judgment that, after concluding that the elements of tort liability—fault, damage and a causal relationship—were present, it nevertheless increased the amount of compensation awarded for moral damage from five thousand to twenty-five thousand dinars, stating that this amount was the result of the appellant's fault and appropriate to redress these injuries, without stating cogent reasons proportionate to the elements of damage it took into account, which do not in themselves support its increase of the amount of compensation and increase of actual attorney's fees. This vitiates the judgment and requires its cassation.