This paper argues that the Law Commission's discussion paper Monetary Remedies in Public Law was vitiated by three flaws prevalent in the critical literature that it surveyed. The first, and most significant, flaw is a tendency to proceed by dislocating legal rules from their context then comparing them as abstract verbal formulae. This is made apparent through a comparison between unreasonableness in the tort of negligence and Wednesbury unreasonableness. The second flaw is the presentation of evaluative conclusions without a sufficient defence of the criteria used to reach them. The third flaw is the adoption of an unhelpfully static perspective as to the purpose of public-law liability rules, which neglects the positive role that they play in structuring good public decision making. The paper concludes by providing a sketch for the design of a research project which transcends these flaws.