Damnum sine Injuria and Leading Cases

DAMUNAM SINE INJURIA here refers to injury without damages arrowed. The Damanum sine injuria refers to a legal situation in which the right of the plaintiff is not respected by the other, but where the violation of the right of the plaintiff is not harmed or at least not a calculable or admissible damage. In the cases related to damnum sine injuria the cases are refered to that of minimal damages.

P. Bhaskaran And Others vs Additional Secretary on 6 November, 1987

A’s freedom to do a work is correlated with B’s right to not do it, and A’s freedom is not correlated. B’s no-right that it will be done. No-right is a constructed term that refers to the absence of authority against another in some particular respect. To say that B has no right against A is just another way of saying that B has no right against A, such as saying A.
Obtaining privileges against B is just another way of saying that A is not subject to duty towards B. Thus a trespasser has the right not to forcibly evict. i.e. has not a right not to be forcibly ejected), corresponding to the occupier’s liberty to eject him. Again, the owner of a building generally has a no-right not to have his windows darkened or his foundations weakened by the buildings or excavations of his neighbours. In short, all cases of damnum sine injuria are cases of no-right.

Gloucester Grammar School’s Case

Facts

In the case of Gloucester Grammar School, the defendant was a school teacher in the plaintiff’s school. Due to some dispute, the defendant left the plaintiff’s school and set up a rival school next to that of the plaintiff. As the defendant was famous among the students for his teaching, the boys of the plaintiff’s school abandoned it and joined the defendant’s school. The plaintiff sued the defendant for the monetary loss caused.

Judgment

It was held that no suit could be false, the defendant was not liable. Compensation due to monetary loss even if there is no basis for action but if no legal right is violated. The defendant had lawfully set up his school and did not violate any legal rights of the plaintiff in doing so.

Furthermore, the students studying in the first appellant’s school liked the defendant’s teaching style, so choosing to study at the institution was their choice.
The appellant could not restrain the defendant to run the business of his school as a contestant.