Law of torts is said to be a collection of circumstances in which remedy is given by the court by way of damages for the legal harm caused by one person to another.
Three elements which need to be proved before constituting tort are as follows:

1. There must be an act or omission on the part of defendant.
2. That act or omission should be in violation of legal right that is vested in the plaintiff.
3. Defendant should commit such wrongful act or omission that give rise to a legal remedy.

There are 2 legal maxims that fall under this category:

1. Damnum sine injuria
2. Sine injuria damnum

1. Damnum sine injuria

This legal maxim refers to as damages without injury or damages in which there is no infringement of legal right. Since there is no infringement of legal right so no cause of action arises in the cases of damnum sine injuria.
There is an implied principle in law that there are no remedies for any moral wrong unless and until there is any infringement of legal right. The court may not grant any sort of damages even if the act done by the wrong doer is intentional.

In a landmark case of Gloucester Grammar School (1410) in which a schoolmaster, set-up a rival school to that of the plaintiff and since because of the competition the plaintiff had to reduce their fees from 40 pence to 12 pence per quarter. Thus claimed for compensation from the defendants for the losses suffered. It was held that the plaintiff had no remedy for the losses suffered, since the act though morally wrong has not violated any legal right of the plaintiff.

2. Injuria sine Damnum

This legal maxim refers to as the infringement of the legal right without causing any harm to the plaintiff. Every person has the right to his property, immunity of hid person and infringement of this right is actionable per se. The law provides liberty to every person whose legal right has been infringed to seek relief under the provisions of Specific Relief Act by way of injunction and declaration.

In the landmark case of Ashby Vs. White (1703) wherein the plaintiff was a qualified voter at the parliamentary elections which were held at that point of time. The defendant, a returning officer wrongfully refused to take the plaintiff’s vote. The plaintiff suffered no damage since the candidate which he wished to vote already won the elections but still, the defendants were held liable. It was concluded that damage is not merely pecuniary but injury imports a damage, so when a man is hindered of his rights he is entitled to remedies.

References:

1. https://blog.ipleaders.in/damnum-injuria/

Written By: Adv. Shubham Mongia