Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Law of Torts

Vikram's neighbour deliberately enters his locked garden without permission but causes no damage. Vikram sues for trespass to land. What is the position in tort law?

Vikram's action succeeds because trespass is actionable per se. It is injuria sine damno, meaning violation of a legal right is itself a wrong, so proof of actual damage or a criminal conviction is not required.

  1. ANo action lies because no actual damage was suffered
  2. BAction lies only if the neighbour's entry caused financial loss
  3. CAction lies only if the neighbour is criminally convicted first
  4. DAction lies as trespass is actionable per se, without proof of damageCorrect

Explanation

Trespass to land is actionable per se, being a case of injuria sine damno: violation of a legal right without actual damage. Proof of loss is not necessary, and a criminal conviction is not a precondition to a civil action. Hence the other options are wrong.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Law of Torts shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Law of TortsFree diagnostic mock

More Law of Torts questions