Damnum sine injuria

A person suffers loss, but no legal right of theirs was violated, so the law gives no remedy. Only the violation of a legal right is actionable in tort. Loss alone is not enough.

A tort needs three elements. In this maxim the third is missing.

1. An act or omission by the defendant.
2. A legal duty owed to the plaintiff.
3. Violation of a legal right, causing legal injury.

• Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410), England: a teacher opened a rival school and the old school lost pupils. Held: no action lies, because competition is not a legal wrong.
• Mogul Steamship Co. v. McGregor, Gow & Co. (1889), House of Lords: shipping companies combined and cut prices to drive a rival out. Held: lawful competition that causes loss is not actionable.
• Bradford Corporation v. Pickles (1895), House of Lords: the defendant dug on his own land and cut off water flowing to the plaintiff's land. Held: lawful use of one's own land is not actionable, and motive is irrelevant.

Not applicable: common law principle of torts.

• The maxim does not protect malicious or unlawful acts.
• Where a statute creates a right, violation of that right is actionable even without loss.

Indian courts follow the English position on this maxim.

Very often asked as "distinguish between damnum sine injuria and injuria sine damno". Always give one case for each side.

"Damn! I lost money, but no right was hit, so no case."

Loss alone is not enough to sue. A legal right must be violated.