Action.
14
Sect. 3.
Damnum absque injuria.
similarly presumed when a bankruptcy petition is presented against a person (o); but in the case of ordinary civil proceedings, however maliciously and unreasonably instituted, the successful defendant has no remedy, for though he is doubtless put to expense, the law does not recognise his " extra costs " as the natural and legal consequence of the proceedings, and he has no damage to complete his cause of action (p).
The publisher of a libel has no right of action against a person who merely brings the libel to the notice of the person libelled (q).
Acts authorised by Act of Parliament.
16. There are also a number of cases in which the Legislature in authorising the construction and carrying on of works (especially works of public utility) necessarily interferes with the existing rights of individuals. Where an Act of Parliament authorises the use or the doing of a particular thing (r), and the thing is used or done for the authorised purpose, any damage resulting therefrom and not due to negligence or unreasonable conduct (s) is damnum absque injuria, and no action will lie therefor (t). No Court can treat as an injuria that which the Legislature authorises, and, except in so far as the Legislature has thought it proper to provide for compensation to the person damaged by the authorised acts, he has no remedy. Where the statute does give compensation, the only remedy is to apply for it in the manner provided by the statute (u). But for the negligent, unreasonable, or oppressive user or execution of authorised works an action will lie (a). Moreover, where no compensation is given, and the terms of the statute are not imperative, but permissive, and no particular place or locality is prescribed for the authorised work, it may be inferred that the Legislature intended that the discretion as to the use of the powers conferred should not be exercised so as to interfere with private rights (b).
Acts of state.
17. Again, an " act of state " may cause damnum absque injuria. Since such an act is essentially an exercise of sovereign power, its
- (o) Quartz Hill Co. v. Eyre (1883), 11 Q. B. D. 674; The Walter D. Wallet, [1893] P. 202; Wyatt v. Palmer, [1899] 2 Q. B. 106.
- (p) Quartz Hill Co. v. Eyre, supra; Cotterell v. Jones (1851), 11 C. B. 713; The Walter D. Wallett, supra.
- (q) Saunders v. Seyd and Kelly's Credit Index Co. (1896), 75 L. T. 193.
- (r) E.g., the construction of a railway, with necessary excavations, and the use of locomotives. See Vaughan v. Taff Vale Rail. Co. (1860), 5 H. & N. 679; London and Brighton Rail. Co. v. Truman (1885), 11 App. Cas. 45; Hammersmith Rail. Co. v. Brand (1869), L. R. 4 H. L. 171; Att.-Gen. v. Metropolitan Railway,[1894] 1 Q. B. 384.
- (s) Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gibbs (1866), L. R. 1 H. L. 93; Clothier v. Webster (1862), 12 C. B. (N. S.) 790; Simkin v. London and North Western Rail. Co. (1888), 21 Q. B. D. 453; Geddis v. Proprietors of Bann Reservoir (1878), 3 App. Cas. 430; Fleming v. Mayor of Manchester (1881), 44 L. T. 517.
- (t) Vaughan v. Taff Vale Rail. Co., supra ; Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gibbs, supra, at p. 112; Hammersmith Rail. Co. v. Brand, supra, at p. 196; London and Brighton Rail. Co. v. Truman, supra; East Fremantle Corporation v. Annois, [1902] A. C. 213.
- (u) Hammersmith Rail. Co. v. Brand, supra; Mersey Docks Trustees v. Gibbs, supra; Cracknell v. Mayor of Thetford (1869), L. R. 4 C. P. 629; Metropolitan Asylum District v. Hill (1881), 6 App. Cas. 193, 203.
- (a) Brine v. Great Western Rail. Co. (1862), 31 L. J. (Q. B.) 101; Roberts v. Charing Cross etc. Rail. Co. (1903), 87 L. T. 732.
- (b) Metropolitan Asylum District v. Hill, supra; Reg. v. Bradford Navigation Co. (1865), 6 B. & S. 631.
