Damnum Sine Injuria

Damnum sine Injuria

In cases of damnum sine injuria, i.e., actual and substantial loss without infringement of any legal right, no action lies. Mere loss in money or money’s worth does not of itself constitute a tort. The most terrible harm may be inflicted by one man on another without legal redress being obtainable.

Case Laws on Damnum Sine Injuria

In Gloucester v Grammar School [1441 YB11 Henry IV, 47], defendant set up a rival school to that of plaintiff with the result, the plaintiff was forced to reduce tuition fees substantially as the boys were moving out. Plaintiff filed to claim damages. HELD that plaintiff had no cause of action on the ground that “bona fide” competition can afford no ground for action. This is a case of ‘damnun sine injuria’.

In Mayor of Bradford v Pickles (1895) AC 597, When Bradford Corporation refused to buy his land, the defendant got annoyed and sank a shaft in his own land . This diminished and discolored the underground water flowing into plaintiff’s land, who then sued the defendant on the ground that his conduct was unlawful and dictated my malice. HELD that the defendant was within his legal rights, and the act though malicious, done in his own land was not actionable.

In Town Area Committee v Prabhudayal AIR(1975) ALL 132, the plaintiff constructed some shops without giving notice to municipal body and without obtaining prior sanction The defendants demolished these shops. Plaintiff claimed damages which was denied. HELD by Allahabad High court, on appeal, “that if a person constructs a building illegally, the demolition of such building by the municipal authorities, though motivated by malice, would not amount to causing ‘injuria’ to the owner of the property”.