In 1964 the House of Lords delivered a unanimous judgement, the point of which they said, was to clear up an ‘anomaly’ in the law. ‘Exemplary damages’ were the ‘anomaly’ of the law to which the House had referred. Amazing and surprisingly narrow limits were placed on the scope of the doctrine of exemplary damages. Such limits as had not been witnessed previously in any court throughout the common law world. As a result two centuries of authorities were suddenly questionable. Several cases were distinguished. Despite the authority of a unanimous House of Lords the case received devastating criticism throughout the common law world. To this day no other jurisdiction has accepted the decision of Rookes V Barnard. The onslaught of this criticism was led by the Australian High Court and allowed by the Board of the Privy Council in the case of Uren V Fairfax. Such rejection was soon followed by the courts of New Zealand, Canada, Tasmania and Ireland. Should the narrow doctrine of the House of Lords, or the wider doctrine of the Australian High Court be preferred?