Causing of damage, however substantial, to another person is not actionable in law unless there is also the violation of a legal right of the plaintiff. In Gloucester Grammar School case, the defendant had set-up a rival school to that of the plaintiffs with the result that the plaintiffs were required to reduce the tuition fees of their school substantially. It was held that the plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendant on the ground that bonafide competition can afford no ground of action, whatever damage it may cause. In Mayor of Bradford v. Pickles, AC , 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 injuria. In this case, the plaintiffs had been deriving water from the adjoining land of the defendant which was at a higher level.
|Published (Last):||15 November 2016|
|PDF File Size:||19.92 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||8.1 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The real significance of this wrong or legal damage can be given by following two Latin maxims, i. No cause of action lies in this situation as there is no harm to the legal right, although there may be any other substantial loss. We can see two main ingredients in the given maxim.
It may be in forms of monetary or of health or of service or of anything like. For presumption of damage, rights has been classified into two kinds, i absolute rights and ii qualified rights. When an absolute right is violated the law conclusively presumes damage although person wronged may have suffered no pecuniary loss, whatsoever.
Damage presumed is legal damage therefore violation of absolute right is actionable per se, without proof of any damage. Whereas qualified rights, there is no presumption of legal damage and violation of such right is actionable only on the proof of actual damage. In Winsmore v. Greenbank,  it has been observed that injury, even it caused by the accident, if tortious there is the cause of action.
It means, in case of a breach of legal private right, any civil wrong or a tortious act there lies an action. Act of trespass, in this situation the legal right of the owner of the property has been breached even though any actual damage or physical injury is not caused.
The owner is entitled to the compensation. Injuria sine damnum It means that any infringement of an absolute private right without any actual loss or damage, the person whose right is infringed has a cause of action.
Even if there is mere threat of infringement of legal right without the injury being complete, the person whose right is threatened can bring a suit under provisions of the Specific Relief Act for declaration and injunction. This can be elucidated with some of the case laws as follows. Ashby v. White  In this case, the legal right to vote of the plaintiff has been infringed by the defendant. At a parliamentary election, the defendant, a returning officer, wrongfully refused to register a duly tendered vote of the plaintiff, a legally qualified voter.
The candidate for whom the vote was tendered was elected, here no actual loss was suffered by the rejection of the vote, nevertheless, it was held that an action lay. In this case the returning officer had acted maliciously. According to the observation of Lord Holt, C. For example in slander, though a man does not face any monetary loss by reason of the speaking the words, yet he shall have an action.
The Municipal Board of Agra v. Ashrafi Lal,  It has been observed that, if a person wrongfully omitted from an electoral roll, who is entitled to be upon such a roll. His legal right to vote has been infringed, and he has deprived of his right. Hence he is entitled to the compensation. Marzetti v. The complainant lodged a lawsuit against the banker who refused to honor his check.
The defendant was held liable by the court for wrongfully dishonoring the cheque. The Court held that it does not matter if any actual loss or damage was sustained by the customer. Bhim Singh v. Chinnappa Reddy, J. Kali Kissen Tagore v. Jodoo Lal Mulick,  The Privy Council observed that, there may be, where a right is interfered with, injuries sine damnum sufficient to cause of action, but no action where there is neither damnum nor injuria.
It means that if there is no damage and also no injury to any private legal right then there is no cause of action and remedy cannot be granted. Conclusion In case of infringement of an absolute private right without any actual loss or damage, the person whose right has been infringed has a cause of action.
So we can conclude that there are certain legal wrongs for which the law does give a legal remedy, though there is the only violation of private rights, without any actual or any substantial loss. References  Setalvad, Common Law in India.
Damnum Sine injuria & Injuria Sine Damnum: All you must know
The real significance of this wrong or legal damage can be given by following two Latin maxims, i. No cause of action lies in this situation as there is no harm to the legal right, although there may be any other substantial loss. We can see two main ingredients in the given maxim. It may be in forms of monetary or of health or of service or of anything like.
The Fact Factor
Injuria sine Damnum 1. Damnum sine Injuria refers to the damages suffered by the plaintiff but no damage is being caused to the legal rights as there is no violation of it Injuria Sine damnum is the legal injury caused to the plaintiff without any damage to the physical injury. It is the losses suffered without the infringement of any legal right hence creating no cause of action. It is an infringement of a legal right where even if no loss has been suffered by the plaintiff still creates an actionable cause of action.