Damnum Sine Injuria & Injuria Sine Damno + Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium — Law of Torts Notes

Damnum Sine Injuria and Injuria Sine Damno

In 1703 a man named Ashby went to vote and the returning officer, White, turned him away without lawful cause. The candidate Ashby wanted won anyway. Ashby had lost nothing you could count in money — and he sued, and he won. Two hundred and eighty years later an MLA in Jammu and Kashmir was wrongfully detained by police on his way to an Assembly session; the Supreme Court awarded him compensation on the same principle. Losing nothing is no answer when a legal right has been taken from you.

The difference between “hurt” and “wronged”

Everything in this topic turns on one distinction. The law separates:

Damnum [damage] — actual loss: money, health, comfort, reputation, trade.
Injuria [legal injury] — the violation of a legal right.

Tort law protects injuria. It does not protect damnum by itself. So you can be badly hurt and have no claim, and you can lose nothing and still have one. Those two possibilities are the two maxims.

A. Damnum sine injuria — loss without legal injury.

This means actual damage suffered without any violation of a legal right, and there is no remedy. The defendant did something he was lawfully entitled to do; the plaintiff’s loss is real but is not a legal injury.

Typical situations:

Lawful competition. Opening a better shop next door and ruining your rival’s trade is lawful, however great his loss.
Lawful use of one’s own land. Digging on your own land and draining your neighbour’s well.
Lawful trade combinations. Traders combining to lower prices and drive a rival out.
Acts done under statutory authority, and the lawful exercise of a legal right generally.

The leading authorities are Gloucester Grammar School (1410), Mogul Steamship Co. v McGregor, Gow & Co. (1892), Chasemore v Richards (1859) and, in India, Town Area Committee v Prabhu Dayal (1975).

B. Injuria sine damno — legal injury without loss.

This means the violation of a legal right without any actual damage, and here there is a remedy. Such wrongs are said to be actionable per se [actionable in themselves], because the law presumes damage from the violation of the right.

Typical situations:

Trespass to land — walking across another’s field, even doing no harm at all.
Wrongful refusal of a vote — Ashby v White.
False imprisonment — Bhim Singh v State of J&K.
Wrongful dishonour of a cheque by a banker where the customer had sufficient funds — Marzetti v Williams (1830).
Libel, and assault and battery.

C. “Every injury imports damage, but every damage is not injury.”

When this sentence appears as the question, it is simply the two maxims restated, and you should say so explicitly:

“Every injury imports damage” = injuria sine damno. Once a legal right is violated, the law presumes damage, so the plaintiff need not prove loss.
“Every damage is not injury” = damnum sine injuria. Loss alone, without violation of a right, gives no claim.

D. Why the law draws the line here.

It would be intolerable if every loss caused by another person were actionable. Competition would be impossible; you could not open a shop, apply for a job, or build on your own land. So the law asks a narrower question — not “did he cause you loss?” but “did he invade a right the law had already given you?”

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — the dried-up well

Facts. X digs a well on his own land to irrigate his farm. As a result, the water in his neighbour Y’s well dries up. Y sues.

Rule. Damnum sine injuria — damage caused by the lawful use of one’s own property violates no legal right (Chasemore v Richards; Acton v Blundell).

Apply. Y’s loss is real and provable, and that is the decoy. But a landowner has no legal right to the continued flow of percolating underground water beneath his neighbour’s soil. X exercised his own lawful right of user; no right of Y’s was invaded.

Variant. If X had dug the well out of pure spite, with no benefit to himself, the answer would still be the same in English law — Bradford Corporation v Pickles holds that a bad motive does not make a lawful act unlawful.

Conclusion. Y fails. No injuria, therefore no tort.

⚠️ DON’T CONFUSE — the two maxims read almost alike

Damnum sine injuria = damage without legal injury → no remedy. Injuria sine damno = legal injury without damage → remedy. Fix it by the first word: whichever word comes first is the thing you have. Getting these the wrong way round reverses your entire answer and every problem based on it.

Holt CJ in Ashby v White (1703): “Every injury imports a damage, though it does not cost the party one farthing… For a damage is not merely pecuniary, but an injury imports a damage, when a man is thereby hindered of his right.”

In Simple Terms: the judge is saying that “damage” in law does not mean only money lost. Being blocked from exercising a right is itself the damage, and that is enough to sue on.

flowchart TD
    H["A person suffers something unpleasant"]
    H --> Q{"Was a LEGAL RIGHT of his violated?"}
    Q -->|"No — only loss"| D["DAMNUM SINE INJURIA — no remedy (Gloucester Grammar School, Mogul Steamship, Chasemore v Richards)"]
    Q -->|"Yes — right violated"| I["INJURIA — actionable"]
    I --> P{"Was there also actual loss?"}
    P -->|"No"| A["INJURIA SINE DAMNO — still actionable per se (Ashby v White, Bhim Singh)"]
    P -->|"Yes"| B["Ordinary tort claim — damages for the loss proved"]

Case Laws

[C-1] Ashby v White (1703) — wrongful refusal of a vote; actionable though the plaintiff lost nothing.
[C-3] Bhim Singh v State of J&K (1985) — MLA wrongfully detained and prevented from attending the Assembly; ₹50,000 exemplary compensation.
[C-2] Gloucester Grammar School Case (1410) — rival school took all the pupils; heavy loss, no legal right violated, no remedy.
[C-5] Mogul Steamship Co. v McGregor, Gow & Co. (1892) — lawful trade combination driving out a rival; damnum sine injuria.
[C-6] Chasemore v Richards (1859) — landowner drained his neighbour’s supply by lawful excavation; no action.
Town Area Committee v Prabhu Dayal (1975) — demolition of a building constructed without sanction; no legal right infringed even though motive was alleged to be bad.
Marzetti v Williams (1830) — banker wrongfully dishonoured a cheque despite sufficient funds; actionable without proof of loss.

Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium

This maxim is the reason Ashby won. Chief Justice Holt reasoned that if the law gives a man a right to vote, it must also give him a way to enforce it — otherwise the right is a decoration, not a right at all. A right nobody can enforce is merely a wish.

A right without a remedy is no right

Ubi jus ibi remedium means “where there is a right, there is a remedy.” Jus here means a legal right — a right recognised and protected by law — and remedium means the means the law provides to restore or vindicate it.

The maxim expresses the whole basis of tort liability. Because tort is uncodified, there is no statutory list of claims. So when a plaintiff shows that a recognised legal right of his has been invaded, the court’s response is that a remedy must follow, even if no earlier case is exactly on all fours. This is how new torts have come into existence.

A. What the maxim requires.

Three conditions have to be satisfied before it operates:

A legal right must exist — not a moral, social or political claim. The law must already recognise the interest as a right.
The right must have been violated, or its exercise obstructed.
The wrong must be one the law recognises as redressable — a wrongful act in the legal sense.

B. The limits — and this is what separates a good answer.

The maxim is often overstated by students. It does not mean that every grievance has a remedy. Say plainly what it does not cover:

It applies only to legal rights, never to moral or purely equitable expectations. There is no remedy for ingratitude or for a broken promise unsupported by consideration.
It creates no new rights — it only ensures that an existing right is not left unenforceable.
It gives way to express statutory bars — where the law itself takes away the remedy (as with limitation, or a statutory immunity), the maxim cannot restore it.
It does not apply where the damage is damnum sine injuria, because there no right was invaded in the first place.

C. Its development.

The maxim is very old, but its modern career begins with Ashby v White, where Holt CJ used it to justify a remedy for an interference with a right that had never been litigated in that form before. In India it has been carried furthest through the constitutional tort — Rudal Shah v State of Bihar (1983) and the cases after it, where the Supreme Court held that the right to life and liberty under Art. 21 would be hollow if no compensation could be awarded for its violation, and so awarded compensation directly under Art. 32.

💡 EXAM TIP — a short note that reads like a full answer

The trap. Most students write three lines — the translation and Ashby v White — and stop. That is worth about half the marks even on a 6-mark note.

What to write. Translate the maxim; state the three conditions; give Ashby v White; then give the limits (legal rights only, creates no new right, yields to statute); close with the Indian extension through Rudal Shah.

Why it scores. Stating the limits proves you understand the maxim rather than merely remembering it, and the Indian case shows currency. Both are cheap marks and take two extra sentences.

Holt CJ in Ashby v White (1703): “If the plaintiff has a right, he must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it, and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise or enjoyment of it; and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy, for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal.”

In Simple Terms: having a right and having a way to enforce it are two sides of one coin. If the law will not help you when the right is broken, then in truth you never had the right.

flowchart TD
    R["A LEGAL right exists (not moral or social)"]
    R --> V["The right is violated or its exercise obstructed"]
    V --> W["The wrong is one the law recognises"]
    W --> Y["UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM — the court must supply a remedy"]
    Y --> C["New torts and the constitutional tort develop this way (Rudal Shah)"]
    R --> L1["Only a moral claim = maxim does not apply"]
    W --> L2["Statute bars the remedy = maxim yields"]

Case Laws

[C-1] Ashby v White (1703) — the foundational application of the maxim.
Rudal Shah v State of Bihar (1983) — compensation under Art. 32 for detention long after acquittal; the maxim applied constitutionally.
[C-3] Bhim Singh v State of J&K (1985) — exemplary compensation for wrongful detention.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past exam questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Law of Torts topics