“DAMNUM SINE INJURIA”

INRODUCTION

In order to succeed in an action of tort, the plaintiff must prove that there has
been a legal injury suffered by him/her. A legal injury refers to the violation of
a legal right vested in the plaintiff. In other words, the plaintiff has to prove that
there was a wrongful act (an act or omission) committed by the defendant
causing the violation of a legal right vested in the plaintiff.

There can be no action under the law of torts unless there is a breach of a legal
right vested in the plaintiff. This has been expressed by the legal maxim
“Damnum sine injuria”.

This maxim is founded on the fundamental premise that using one's common or
ordinary rights within reasonable bounds and without infringing on another's
legal rights does not give rise to a tort action in favor of that other person.
Thus, in circumstances where a legal right has been infringed, the court
presumes that damages must be awarded; but, in cases where no legal right has
been infringed, this maxim applies, and no remedies are available.

So, an act that is lawfully or legally done, without negligence, and in the
exercise of a legal right, such damages as accrue to another as a result, can be
considered to be damage without injury.

MEANING
 Damnum means substantial injury, loss, or damage in terms of money, health,
or other assets. Injuria refers to the violation of a legal right granted to the
plaintiff. Sine refers to without.

Thus, Damnum sine injuria means damages without injury or damage in which
there is no infringement of any legal right which are vested with the plaintiff.
Thus, there is no action in circumstances of damnum sine injuria because no
legal right has been violated.

INTENTION OF THE DEFENDANT

There are no remedies for any moral wrongs unless and until a legal right has been
breached, which is an assumed concept in law. Even if the defendant's act or
omission was intentional, the Court will not award the plaintiff any damages.

As in the case of Mayor & Co. of Bradford vs. Pickles (1895), in which the
corporation of Bradford sued the defendant, alleging that the defendant's act of
digging a well on adjoining land owned by the defendant cut the underground
supply of water in the corporation's well, causing them monetary losses because
there was no adequate supply of water to discharge for the people living under the
corporation's jurisdiction.

The House of Lords held that even if the harm to the plaintiff has been caused
maliciously no action can lie for the same unless the plaintiff can prove that he has
suffered legal damage or injuria.

Thus, a legal action will not make the defendant liable even though it is motivated
by malice.
 CASE LAW

GLOUCESTER GRAMMAR SCHOOL CASE

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The plaintiff in the case is a school that was set up a long time ago and was much
known for its education system. The defendant worked at the plaintiff's school as a
teacher. However, due to various disagreements, the defendant eventually departed
the plaintiff's school. After leaving the plaintiff's school employment. The
defendant had established his school, which was adjacent to the plaintiff's. The
defendant had the advantage of being well-known among his peers for his ability to
educate. As a result, a large number of pupils from the plaintiff school transferred
to the defendant's school. The plaintiff school's reputation and income were both
harmed as a result of this.

In addition, the new institution charged pupils lower costs. Gloucester grammar
school, on the other hand, charged 40 pence in fees. Because of the defendants'
school's actions, the plaintiff had to cut the school's fees as well. The plaintiff, who
was enraged by the defendant's actions, filed a lawsuit against him in order to sue
him and recover damages.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Is the defendant going to be responsible for the loss suffered by the plaintiff by
fixing a rival school and have damaged the right of the plaintiff?

2. Does this case not cover the essentials of ‘Damnum Sine Injuria’ and if yes then
the defendant couldn’t be held liable?
JUDGEMENT

The court held that Gloucester Grammar School has no case against the
defendant as they have suffered damages but no legal right of the petitioner was
injured.

Therefore the act of opening up another school of similar fee structure or even a
discounted fee structure was not an actionable wrong nor an injury to
Gloucester Grammar school or his proprietor.

CONCLUSION
The conclusion of the maxim is that even though there has been a moral wrong
committed by the defendant that caused great loss or detriment to the plaintiff
the law gives no remedy to the plaintiff. The main aim of the maxim Damnum
Sine Injuria is that no ground of action or no cause of action lies for a person
who is acting within reasonable limits even though the other person is suffering
losses on that account