CASE COMMENT

Gloucester Grammar School Case

SUBJECT: LAW OF TORTS

SUBMITTED TO:                                         SUBMITTED BY:

DR.PREM CHANDRA ABHAYAJIT

(ASSISTANT PROFESSOR) B.A.LL.B 1stSEMESTER

SARDAR PATEL SUBHARTI INSTITUTE OF LAW

SWAMI VIVEKANAND SUBHARTI UNIVERSITY,
MEERUT, U.P.

1
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

At the very outset, I would like to pay thanks to the almighty God. It gives me immense pleasure
to acknowledge and to say thanks to the ones who helped me throughout the course of my work.
I am really thankful to our respected subject teacher DR.PREM CHANDRA (ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR) Sardar Patel Subharti Institute of Law, Swami Vivekananda Subharti
University. Under whose learned and scholarly guidance the present work has been completed.
He helped us in a passive way. She gave me moral support and guided me in different matters
regarding the topic. She had been very kind and patient while suggesting me the outlines of this
Memorial and correcting my doubts.

I thank her for overall supports. Constructive suggestions have always been soothing and desired
effect, hence it my duty to express my gratitude for her constant support and encouragement.

ABHAYAJIT
BA.LLB

1st SEMESTER

2
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….4

2. Historical Background…………………………………………………………….5

3. Facts of the Case…………………………………………………………………..7

4. The Case Overview………………………………………………………………...8

 The Case
 The Bench
 The Date of Judgment
 Parties involved
 Statutes involved
 Cases referred

5. Issues Raised………………………………………………………………………..9

6. Comment.……………………………………………………………………….…10

7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................13

3
 INTRODUCTION

This case is a landmark case of Damnum sine injuria in which the theory of
damage without injury was clearly defined and also declares that every person has
the right to business and employment.

4
 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND:

Damnum Sine Injuria:

This is a legal maxim in law of torts which deals with damages caused without
injury. So it basically deals with the damages caused where there is no
involvement of infringement of legal rights. Since there is no infringement of legal
rights to any particular person, hence this cannot be enforced in court of law.

The mere fact that a man is injured by another's act gives in itself no cause of
action; if the act is deliberate, the party injured will have no claim in law even
though the injury is intentional, so long as the other party is exercising a legal
right.

Damnum sine Injuria is a Latin word, which mean DAMAGE WITHOUT

INJURY, and hence the word itself clearly establishes that if a person suffers from
any kind of damage, but if there is no Inter vision with the legal rights of a person,
then neither it can be enforced in the court of law, nor a person can claim any
compensation.

The maxim Damnum Sine Injuria is dived into three parts:

Damnum includes anything which is related to substantial loss, harm, damage with
respect to money, health etc.

Injuria means infringement of a right given by the law by the plaintiff Sine means
without

5
The general principle on which this maxim is based upon is that if one exercises
his common or ordinary rights, within reasonable limits, and without infringing
others legal right; such an exercise does not give rise to an action in tort in favor of
that other person. Damages can be in any form either in the form of any substantial
harm or loss suffered from respect to the money, comfort, health, etc.

6
 FACTS OF THE CASE:

In this case, the defendant was a school teacher who used to work in plaintiff
school. Due to some conflicts which arose between the defendant and plaintiff,
defendant had left the school. Later, he set up a rival school next to that of plaintiff.
Defendant school teacher was very popular for his teaching. Boys from the
plaintiff school left it and started to join in defendant’s school, because of this
competition the plaintiff had to reduce them from 40peneace to 12penance. The
plaintiff sued defendant for monetary loss occurred.

7
 THE CASE OVERVIEW

THE PRESENT CASE:

Gloucester Grammar School Case

CITATION:

((1411), Y. B. 11 Hen. 4, f. 47, pi. 19)

THE BENCH:

JUSTICE Y.B. Hilary

THE DATE OF JUDGEMENT:

1410
PARTIES INVOLVED:

PETITIONER – GLOUCESTER GRAMMER SCHOOL

RESPONDENT – RIVAL SCHOOL.

8
 ISSUE RAISED:

1 Can defendant be held responsible for the monetary loss suffered by the plaintiff, just
because he had fixed a rival school and damaged the right of plaintiff?

2.Did this case cover the essentials of Damnum sine injuria? And if yes then the
defendant couldn’t be held liable?

9
 JUDGEMENT

It was held by court that; no suit could lie. It was held by court of law that
defendant couldn’t be held liable. The court stated that:

compensation is no ground of action even though the monetary loss is caused, but
if no legal right is violated.

It also further stated that, the defendant had lawfully set up his own school and he
nowhere violated any legal right of plaintiff.

It was believed by the court that, students liked the teaching style of defendant,
hence it was at the discretion of the students to study in which ever school they
want to.

Appellant has no right to stop the defendant to run a business as a competition to

his school.

10
MY ANALYSIS OF THE CASE/MY COMMENT ON THE CASE:

Law of Torts is understood to be An instrument to form people adhere to conduct

of reasonable behavior and respect the rights and interests of one another.

And the same are kept in mind while giving the judgment of the case at the top of
the decision of the law of court.

The case which we discussed above is related to An act which caused damage but
no legal right is infringed or compromised

This is known as Damnum Sine injuria which means:

Damage without legal injury.

The decision taken in the case GLOUCESTER GRAMMER SCHOOL, was also
applied to the similar case Chasemore vs Richards (1859). In this case the plaintiff
was running a mill on his own land, and for the same purpose he was using stream
water for a long time. The well which was dug in his own land did cut the supply
of underground water supply.

The quantity of water in the stream was reduced due to this reason the mill was
closed. The plaintiff sued deft for the damage caused. For this case, the court had
taken the precedent from Gloucester grammar case and stated that this is a case of
Damnum sine injuria. Since there is no legal injury, the court held that plaintiff ask
for any compensation.

In India, the concept of law of torts has been given constitutional value as it is
applied in deciding many cases

Example:

Vishnu Dutt Sharma vs Board of High School: In this case the plaintiff filed a
suit and argued that he was entitled to damage as he had suffered a loss of one year
due to wrongfully detention by the principal. Even in this case, the court held that
the plaintiff can’t claim compensation as misconstructions of regulations doesn’t
amount to tort. From this case analysis, we can conclude that compensation is not

11
the ground of action despite the fact that monetary loss, or any other type of loss is
caused but if no right is violated

For the concept of Damnum sine injuria, the Gloucester grammar case has been a
land mark case, and from this the court had laid down the rules that:

If There Is No Infringement Of Legal Right, Then No Compensation Can Be

Claimed

CONCLUSION

12
The Court held that plaintiff was not entitled to the compensation, every person

has their own right to the profession, business, and employment, and in the

existence of the competition in business and profession is a common thing and if a

person suffers a loss due to competition then in that case remedy does not exist.

13