law of tort

The case analysis is written by Mohit Bhardwaj a second-year student of Unitedworld School of Law. In this case comment, the author has briefly explained the case of Gloucester Grammar School Case.

INTRODUCTION

A question was raised by the famous case of Gloucester Grammar School that is , “when no right is infringed but the damage is caused to someone then how justice is served by the law”? This case is analyzed with the assistance of various other case laws.

Case Numbers

Hen. 4 of 47

Hon’ble Judges/Coram

Y.B. Hilary

Decided on-

1410

Equivalent Citation

(1410) YB 11 Hen IV, fo. pl. 201, 23, f. 47, pi. 19

Statutes Refered

Tort Law

Cases Refereed

Chasemore v/s Richards 1859

Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Board of highschool and Intermediate Examination AIR 1981

Brief Facts and Procedural History

In the case of Gloucester Grammar School, A grammar-school teacher (defendant) opened a new school in the town of Gloucester without obtaining a grant from the Prior to establish the school. The new school charged students 12 pence to attend. The normal fee for students at the existing Grammar School of Gloucester (Grammar School) was 40 pence. The Grammar School’s employees (plaintiffs) sued the schoolteacher for trespassing on the Grammar School’s franchise from the Prior.

Issues Before the Court

  1. Does the defendant are going to be responsible for the loss suffered by the plaintiff by fixing a rival school and have damaged the right of the plaintiff ?
  2. Does this case not cover the essentials of ‘Damnum Sine Injuria’? and if yes then the defendant couldn’t be held liable?

Ratio of the Case

The case we are discussing is about ‘An act which caused damage but no right is infringed or compromised’ also referred to as ‘Damnum Sine Injuria’ in Latin, which means ‘damage suffered without legal injury’.The plaintiff had suffered considerable damages but true competition can afford no ground of action.

Similarly, in the case of Chasemore v/s Richards 1859, Plaintiff was running a mill on his own land, and for this purpose, he was using the water of the stream for a long time. The Deft dug well in his own land and thereby discontinued the underground water supply of stream. Through percolation, the water gathered in the well of deft.

The quantity of water of the stream was reduced and therefore the mill was closed for non-availability of water. The plaintiff sued deft for the damage caused. It was held in accordance with Damnum Sine Injuria that Deft was not liable.

In India Law of Torts has been given constitutional value because it is applied to decide many cases for example- In the case of Vishnu Dutt Sharma v. Board of highschool and Intermediate Examination AIR 1981, the plaintiff was a student who was wrongfully detained by the principal, on the idea of misconstruction of the relevant regulations, on the account of the shortage of attendance. The plaintiff filed a suit and argued that he was entitled to damages as he had suffered a loss of one year.

The court held that the plaintiff cannot claim the compensation as a misconstruction of regulations doesn’t amount to Tort.

Decision of the Court

It was held that no suit could lie, the defendant wasn’t liable. Compensation is not the ground of action despite the fact that the monetary loss is caused but if no right is violated. The defendant had lawfully established his school and didn’t violate any legal rights of the plaintiff in doing so.

Latest Posts


Archives

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *