Define: Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam

Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam
Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam
Quick Summary of Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam

Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam is a Latin legal maxim that translates to “the act of the law does no one wrong.” This principle is based on the idea that the law, as an abstract concept, cannot be held responsible for any harm or injury caused to individuals.

The maxim emphasizes that the law is impartial and applies equally to all individuals, regardless of their social status, wealth, or personal circumstances. It implies that if a law is enacted or enforced, it cannot be considered a wrongful act, even if it may cause inconvenience or harm to certain individuals.

This legal principle is often invoked to defend the actions of government authorities or public officials who are acting within the scope of their legal authority. It serves as a shield against claims of wrongdoing or liability, as it asserts that the law itself cannot be held accountable for any negative consequences that may arise from its application.

However, it is important to note that this maxim does not absolve individuals or entities from liability for their actions. It merely emphasizes that the law itself, as an abstract concept, cannot be considered a wrongful act. If an individual or entity acts outside the boundaries of the law or abuses their legal authority, they can still be held accountable for any harm or injury caused.

In summary, Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam is a legal maxim that asserts the law itself cannot be considered a wrongful act. It emphasizes the impartiality of the law and serves as a defence against claims of wrongdoing or liability. However, it does not absolve individuals or entities from liability for their actions outside the boundaries of the law.

What is the dictionary definition of Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam?
Dictionary Definition of Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam

Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam is a Latin legal maxim that translates to “an act of the law does no one wrong.” It refers to the principle that actions or decisions taken by the government or legal authorities, within the bounds of the law, cannot be considered as causing harm or injury to individuals. This principle emphasises that individuals cannot claim damages or seek legal remedies for any harm caused by the lawful exercise of governmental or legal powers. It highlights the idea that the law itself, when properly applied, cannot be considered a source of injustice or injury.

Full Definition Of Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam

“Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam” is a Latin legal maxim that translates to “the act of the law does injury to no one.” This principle forms a fundamental part of common law and various legal systems derived from it, ensuring that actions mandated by law do not result in actionable harm to individuals. The maxim underscores the idea that when an act is done in accordance with the law, it is presumed to be just and reasonable, thereby precluding claims of injury or liability.

Historical Context

The origins of “Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam” can be traced back to Roman law, where it was employed to reconcile the enforcement of legal duties with individual rights. Roman jurists used this principle to assert that legal mandates, by their very nature, could not be injurious because they were designed to serve justice. As English common law developed, this maxim was incorporated to address conflicts arising from the enforcement of statutory and common law obligations.

Principles and Application

The principle operates under several key assumptions:

  • Legality and Fairness: Acts performed under the law are presumed fair and just.
  • Prevention of Liability: Legal acts that comply with statutory requirements or judicial orders cannot form the basis of a lawsuit for damages.
  • Public Interest: The public interest in enforcing laws supersedes individual claims of injury arising from such enforcement.

Judicial Interpretation

British courts have interpreted “Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam” in numerous cases, solidifying its role in common law. The maxim is often invoked in contexts where individuals claim damages resulting from actions taken under statutory authority. The courts typically assess whether the act was mandated by law and executed in accordance with legal standards. If these criteria are met, claims of injury are generally dismissed.

Key Cases and Examples

  • Case of the King’s Bench (1603): In this early case, the court held that actions taken by a public official under statutory authority could not be deemed injurious, even if they resulted in individual harm. The court emphasized that the law, by its nature, could not be unjust.
  • Phillips v Eyre (1870): This landmark case established that acts done under the authority of law do not constitute a tort. The plaintiff claimed damages for imprisonment under a colonial statute, but the court ruled that the imprisonment, being lawful, could not be considered injurious.
  • Chandler v. DPP (1964): In this case, the defendants were convicted under the Official Secrets Act for attempting to disrupt a military base. They argued that their actions were justified by a higher moral duty to prevent nuclear war. The court, however, held that lawful acts by the government, such as maintaining national security, could not be deemed injurious.

Limitations and Exceptions

While “Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam” is a robust principle, it is not absolute. Courts have identified several limitations and exceptions:

  • Misapplication of the Law: If an act is performed incorrectly or without proper authority, the maxim does not apply. For instance, if a public official exceeds their legal mandate, resulting in harm, the injured party may have a valid claim.
  • Bad Faith: Actions taken in bad faith or with malicious intent, even if under the guise of legal authority, can be deemed injurious. The courts distinguish between genuine legal acts and those performed with ulterior motives.
  • Human Rights Considerations: With the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK law, acts that infringe on fundamental human rights may not be shielded by this principle. Courts now balance statutory authority with individual rights enshrined in the ECHR.

Modern Implications

In contemporary legal practice, “Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam” continues to be a vital principle, particularly in administrative law and public law. It safeguards public officials and entities from liability when performing their duties within the bounds of the law. However, the modern legal landscape, with its emphasis on human rights and judicial review, requires a nuanced application of this maxim.

  • Administrative Law: Public bodies frequently invoke this principle to defend actions taken under statutory authority. For example, regulatory agencies performing inspections or enforcing compliance are protected from claims of injury provided they act within their legal mandate.
  • Police Powers: Law enforcement officials rely on “Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam” to justify arrests, searches, and seizures conducted in accordance with legal protocols. However, instances of excessive force or unlawful detention fall outside this protection.
  • Judicial Acts: Judges and courts are immune from liability for decisions made in their judicial capacity. This immunity ensures the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, reinforcing the principle that legal decisions, by definition, cannot be injurious.

Human Rights Context

The Human Rights Act 1998, incorporating the ECHR into domestic law, adds a layer of complexity. Courts must now ensure that acts done under statutory authority comply with human rights standards. This often involves a balancing act between upholding legal mandates and protecting individual rights.

Judicial Review and Proportionality: Modern courts employ judicial review to assess the legality and proportionality of actions taken under statutory authority. If a legal act disproportionately infringes on individual rights, the court may find it injurious, thereby limiting the application of “Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam”.


  • R v. A (No 2) (2001): This case involved the admissibility of sexual history evidence under the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999. The House of Lords held that statutory provisions must be read in a way compatible with ECHR rights, illustrating the intersection of statutory authority and human rights.
  • Smith v. Ministry of Defence (2013): In this case, the Supreme Court held that the Ministry of Defence could be liable for negligence under common law, despite statutory authority governing military operations. The court balanced statutory obligations with the duty of care owed to servicemen, showing the nuanced application of the maxim in light of human rights considerations.


“Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam” remains a cornerstone of legal doctrine, affirming that actions taken under the authority of law are inherently just and non-injurious. Its application spans various legal fields, providing immunity to public officials, regulatory bodies, and judicial acts performed within legal bounds. However, the principle is not without its limitations. Misapplication of the law, actions taken in bad faith, and conflicts with human rights standards can all limit the scope of this maxim.

In the modern legal landscape, especially with the influence of the ECHR and human rights legislation, the principle must be applied with careful consideration of proportionality and individual rights. Judicial review plays a crucial role in ensuring that legal acts do not disproportionately harm individuals, maintaining a balance between enforcing the law and protecting human rights.

Overall, “Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam” encapsulates the essence of lawful authority and justice, underscoring the legal system’s commitment to fairness and the rule of law. Its enduring relevance reflects the dynamic interplay between statutory mandates and individual rights in a continually evolving legal context.

Related Phrases
No related content found.

This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

This glossary post was last updated: 7th June 2024.

Cite Term

To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.

  • Page URL:
  • Modern Language Association (MLA):Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam. DLS Solicitors. June 16 2024
  • Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam. DLS Solicitors. (accessed: June 16 2024).
  • American Psychological Association (APA):Actus Legis Nemini Facit Injuriam. Retrieved June 16 2024, from website:
Avatar of DLS Solicitors
DLS Solicitors : Family Law Solicitors

Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.

All author posts