Legal Maxims and Current Legal Affairs — Practice

Question 1

Principle: No person shall be condemned or penalised without being given a fair opportunity to be heard (audi alteram partem).
Facts: A university expels a student for alleged cheating without asking him for any explanation or giving him any hearing.
Has a principle of natural justice been breached?
(a) No, the university may expel whom it likes (b) Yes — the student was condemned without being heard (c) No, if he actually cheated (d) Yes, only if he was innocent

Accepted Answer

(b) Yes.

The student was penalised without any opportunity to explain. That breaches audi alteram partem, regardless of whether he in fact cheated — the defect is in the unfair procedure.

Question 2

Principle: No person may be a judge in his own cause; a decision-maker must be free from bias (nemo judex in causa sua).
Facts: A disciplinary panel is set up to decide a complaint, and the very person who made the complaint sits as one of the members judging it.
Is the principle breached?
(a) No, complainants know the facts best (b) Yes — the complainant cannot also be a judge in the same matter (c) No, if the other members outvote him (d) Yes, only if the accused objects

Accepted Answer

(b) Yes.

A complainant judging his own complaint is an obvious source of bias. Nemo judex in causa sua is breached the moment he sits on the panel deciding the matter.

Question 3

Principle: Injuria sine damno — the violation of a legal right is actionable even if no actual loss is suffered.
Facts: A returning officer wrongfully refuses to record V's validly cast vote. The candidate V wished to vote for wins the election anyway.
Can V sue?
(a) No, his candidate won, so there is no loss (b) Yes — his legal right to vote was violated, and that is actionable without loss (c) No, one vote makes no difference (d) Yes, only if the result had changed

Accepted Answer

(b) Yes.

V's legal right to have his valid vote recorded was violated. Under injuria sine damno the violation of a legal right is actionable even though V suffered no actual loss because his candidate won.

Question 4

Principle: Damnum sine injuria — actual loss without the violation of a legal right is not actionable.
Facts: A well-run new school opens near an existing one and lawfully attracts many of its students, causing the older school a sharp fall in income.
Can the older school sue?
(a) Yes, it lost income (b) No — it suffered loss but no legal right of its was violated (c) Yes, competition is unfair (d) No, only because the new school is better

Accepted Answer

(b) No.

The older school lost money, but lawful competition violates no legal right. This is damnum sine injuria — loss without legal injury — and gives no cause of action.

Question 5

Principle: Volenti non fit injuria — a person who freely consents to a known risk cannot later complain of harm from that risk.
Facts: A spectator buys a ticket and sits in the ordinary stand at a cricket match, aware that balls are sometimes hit into the crowd. A six strikes and injures him.
Can he claim damages?
(a) Yes, the ground should be safer (b) No — he voluntarily accepted the known risk of the game (c) Yes, he did not expect to be hit (d) No, only because he had a ticket

Accepted Answer

(b) No.

By attending and sitting in the ordinary stand, the spectator freely accepted the known risk that a ball might be hit into the crowd. Under volenti non fit injuria he cannot claim for harm from that very risk.

Question 6

Principle: Ubi jus ibi remedium — where the law confers a right, it also provides a remedy for its violation.
Facts: P's clear legal right is violated by D. D argues that because no specific statute names a remedy for this exact wrong, P can get nothing.
Is D correct?
(a) Yes, no statute means no remedy (b) No — where there is a right there is a remedy, so P can seek relief (c) Yes, unless Parliament acts (d) No, only if P suffered a loss too

Accepted Answer

(b) No.

Ubi jus ibi remedium means a recognised legal right carries with it a remedy for its breach. The absence of a statute naming the remedy does not leave P without relief.

Question 7

Principle: Only the ratio decidendi — the reasoning essential to a decision — binds later courts; obiter dicta, remarks made in passing, are persuasive only.
Facts: Deciding a contract dispute, a judge holds the agreement void for lack of consideration. In passing, she also remarks that 'online contracts ought to require video verification.' A later court must decide whether that remark binds it.
Is the remark binding?
(a) Yes, a judge's every word is law (b) No — it is obiter dicta, not the ratio, so it is persuasive only (c) Yes, because it concerns contracts (d) No, only if the later case is different

Accepted Answer

(b) No.

The decision rested on lack of consideration; the video-verification comment was not necessary to it. It is therefore obiter dicta — persuasive at most, not binding on the later court.

Question 8

Principle: Qui facit per alium facit per se — he who acts through another acts himself; an employer is liable for a wrong done by an employee in the course of employment.
Facts: A courier company's driver, while delivering parcels on his assigned route, negligently knocks down and injures a pedestrian.
Is the company liable?
(a) No, only the driver was careless (b) Yes — the driver acted in the course of employment, so the company is liable (c) No, the company did not drive (d) Yes, but only if the driver cannot pay

Accepted Answer

(b) Yes.

The driver's negligence occurred while doing his assigned work — in the course of employment. Under qui facit per alium facit per se the company is vicariously liable for it.

Question 9

Principle: Res ipsa loquitur — where an accident is of a kind that does not ordinarily happen without negligence and the thing was under the defendant's control, negligence is presumed and the defendant must disprove it.
Facts: A sack of flour falls from the upper window of D's warehouse onto a passer-by below. D offers no explanation of how it happened.
What is the position?
(a) The passer-by must prove exactly how D was careless (b) Negligence is presumed against D, who must disprove it (c) No claim, since accidents happen (d) D is liable only if he admits fault

Accepted Answer

(b) Negligence is presumed against D.

A flour sack does not fall from a warehouse window without negligence, and the warehouse was in D's control. Res ipsa loquitur applies: negligence is presumed and, having offered no explanation, D is liable unless he can disprove it.

Practice — Legal Maxims and Current Legal Affairs

Sign in to save attempts to your dashboard and track your accuracy over time

Find a verified tutor

Join a live course

Browse coaching centres

About

Categories

Support

Documentation

Get Study Tips & Updates

Download Our App

Download for iOS

Download for Android

Popular Cities