Damnum Sine Injuria

It means damage which is not coupled with an unauthorized interference

with the plaintiffs lawful right. Causing of damage, however substantial, to
another person is not actionable in law unless there is also 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, (1895) AC 587, 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. The defendant sank a shaft
over his own land which diminished and discolored the water flowing to
the land of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claimed an injunction to restrain
the defendant from sinking the shaft alleging that the sole purpose of the
same was to injure the plaintiffs as they did not purchase his land at an
exorbitant price. The House of Lords held that since the defendant was
exercising his lawful right he could not be made liable even though the act,
which injured the plaintiff, was done maliciously.

In Mogul steamship Co. v. McGregor Gow and Co.,(1891) AC 25, a number of

steamship companies combined together and drove the plaintiff company
out of the tea-carrying trade by offering reduced freight. The House of
Lords held that the plaintiff had no cause of action as the defendants had
by lawful means acted to protect and extend their trade and increase their
profits.
The maxim damnum sine injuria can be better explained by the following
mathematical formula as deduced by Prof. S.P. Singh in his book Law of
Tort as:

Act + Loss Injury = Damnum sine injuria

Defendants act + plaintiffs loss Plaintiffs injury = Damnum sine injuria.

Defendants act + Defendants malice + Plaintiffs loss Plaintiffs injury =

Damnum sine injuria.

Injuria Sine Damno

Injuria sine damno means violation of a legal right without causing any
harm, loss or damage to the plaintiff. It is just reverse to the maxim
damnum sine injuria. In Ashby v. White, (1703) 2 LR 938, the plaintiff was a
qualified voter at a parliamentary election, but the defendant, a returning
officer wrongfully refused to take plaintiffs vote. No loss was suffered by
such refusal because the candidate for whom he wanted to vote won
inspite of that. The defendant was held liable, even though his act did not
cause any damage.

In case of injuria sine damno the loss suffered by the plaintiff is not
relevant for the purpose of a cause of action. It is relevant only for
assessing the amount of damages. If the plaintiff has suffered no harm and
yet the wrongful act is actionable, nominal damages may be awarded.

Thus, the maxim injuria sine damno can be better explained by the
mathematical formula deduced by Professor S.P. Singh in his book Law of
Tort as:

Act + Injury-Loss = Injuria sine damno.

Defendants act + Plaintiffs Injury Plaintiffs loss = Injuria sine damno.