A Study on Determining the Multiplier for Punitive Damages in Environmental Torts: Starting with the “One to Two Times” Ruling in the Jianyang Brick Factory Air Pollution Case

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jel.202614511

Author(s)

Hongjian Lin

Affiliation(s)

Internet of Things Engineering, School of Artificial Intelligence, Chengdu Technological University, Yibin, China

Abstract

Determining the multiplier for punitive damages is a “practical challenge” in environmental public interest litigation. In the 2025 Jianyang Brick Factory air pollution case, the procuratorate initially proposed a one-fold multiplier as the punitive damages in the indictment, which was upheld at the hearing, but the mediation ultimately settled on a two-fold multiplier. This shift serves as a case study of the evolution in the exercise of discretion regarding the multiplier, from a one-fold multiplier to a two-fold multiplier. This paper focuses on the question of “why the multiplier was changed from a one-fold multiplier to a two-fold multiplier” to discuss current issues of discretionary misconduct. The study found the following: First, the dispute over “one-fold” versus “two-fold” is essentially a difference in the assessment of two aggravating factors-“28 months of continuous emissions” and “malicious acts of interfering with monitoring.” Second, the current law only requires a multiplier of “up to two-fold,” leading to a “black box” in multiplier discretion, with uncertain scales, uncertain weightings, uncertain rules for aggregation, and ambiguous thresholds for changes; Third, the fact that the hearing confirmed a one-fold multiplier but the ruling resulted in a two-fold multiplier reflects the tension between procedural justice and substantive justice; Fourth,establishing a“list of factors” system provides a traceable conceptual framework for discretion, clarifies the weighting of each factor and the corresponding multiplier ranges, and makes the transition from a one-fold multiplier to a two-fold multiplier more logically transparent in the exercise of discretion.

Keywords

Environmental Public Interest Litigation; Punitive Damages; Multiplier Damages; the Jianyang Brick Factory Air Pollution Case

References

[1] Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (2020), Article 1232, Beijing: People's Publishing House [2] Zhu Guangxin (2025): “The Doctrinal Structure and Implementation Pathways of Punitive Damages,” in *Comparative Law Studies*, No. 4, pp. 52–68 [3] Yang Yue, Shi Tiantian (2025): “A Study on the Application of Punitive Damages in Environmental Tort Cases,” in *Legal System Review*, No. 32, pp. 52–54 [4] Supreme People's Court (2022): “Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of Punitive Damages in the Trial of Ecological and Environmental Tort Disputes,” Fa Shi [2022] No. 1 [5] Eighth Procuratorial Department of the Supreme People's Procuratorate (2022): “Guidelines on Hearings in Public Interest Litigation Cases Handled by People's Procuratorates,” issued on January 5, 2022 [6] Tang Bowei (2025): “Exceeding Air Pollutant Emission Standards: How Should Punitive Damages Be Calculated?”, in *Procuratorial Daily*, January 9, 2025, Public Interest Weekly section [7] Wei Shiyun. "Determination Rules for the Amount of Punitive Damages in Eco-environmental Torts." Caijing Faxue (Finance and Economics Law), 2026, No. 3, pp. 82–98. [8] Zheng Yuhan. "On the Quantification of Punitive Damages for Eco-environmental Damage." Journal of Southwest University of Political Science and Law, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 114–130.