What does the maxim 'ignorantia juris non excusat' mean?

An act of God excuses performance

Ignorance of a fact is no excuse

The law does not concern itself with trifles

What does the maxim 'actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea' mean?

No one may be punished twice for the same offence

An act done by me against my will is not my act

Every act is presumed to have been done lawfully

What does the maxim 'ubi jus ibi remedium' mean?

The law helps those who are vigilant

Justice delayed is justice denied

Where there is a remedy, there is a wrong

Legal Reasoning · Micro-test

Legal Maxims

A maxim is a rule of law compressed into a few Latin words. Entrance tests ask for the meaning, and more usefully, for the maxim that fits a set of facts.

10 questions · 5 minutes · instant scoring

What this topic actually tests

It helps to learn maxims in the groups in which they are used. Natural justice has two: audi alteram partem (hear the other side), which requires that a person be heard before a decision is made against them, and nemo judex in causa sua (no one should be a judge in their own cause), the rule against bias. Tort has a cluster. Injuria sine damno is the violation of a legal right without any actual loss, which is actionable: in Ashby v White a voter wrongly turned away could sue although his candidate won. Damnum sine injuria is actual loss without the violation of any legal right, which is not actionable: in the Gloucester Grammar School case, a schoolmaster who lost fees to a rival school had no claim. Volenti non fit injuria (to one who consents, no wrong is done) is the defence that the claimant accepted the risk. Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself) lets a court infer negligence from the event itself when such things do not ordinarily happen without it. Criminal law has actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty) and ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse). Procedure has res judicata, which bars a matter finally decided between the same parties from being tried again, and ubi jus ibi remedium (where there is a right, there is a remedy). To apply a maxim to facts, identify what the question turns on: a denied hearing, an interested decision-maker, an accepted risk, a loss with no right infringed.

The common trap on this topic

Injuria sine damno and damnum sine injuria are confused more than any other pair. Hold on to the first word: injuria is legal injury, the violation of a right, and damnum is damage in the sense of actual loss. Injuria without damnum is a right violated without loss (actionable); damnum without injuria is loss without a right violated (not actionable). The second confusion is between the two rules of natural justice: a person who was never heard has an audi alteram partem complaint, while a person heard by an interested judge has a nemo judex complaint. The third is res judicata, a matter already finally decided, with res sub judice, a matter still pending before a court.

Legal Maxims: answers and explanations

What does the maxim 'audi alteram partem' mean?
Answer: D. Hear the other side
Audi alteram partem is the rule of natural justice that a person must be given a hearing before a decision is made against them. The other three are nemo judex in causa sua, caveat emptor and res ipsa loquitur.
After an operation, a surgical swab is found inside a patient's abdomen. The patient, who was unconscious throughout, cannot say who left it there or how. Which maxim most assists the patient in a claim for negligence?
Answer: C. Res ipsa loquitur
Res ipsa loquitur, the thing speaks for itself, allows negligence to be inferred where the event is of a kind that does not ordinarily happen without it and the matter was in the defendant's control. A swab left inside a patient is the standard illustration.
What does the maxim 'ignorantia juris non excusat' mean?
Answer: B. Ignorance of the law is no excuse
A person cannot escape liability by showing that they did not know the law. The maxim concerns ignorance of law; a mistake of fact, by contrast, can be a defence in some circumstances.
A spectator buys a ticket to a cricket match and is struck by a ball hit for six in the ordinary course of play. He sues the organisers. Which maxim describes their most likely defence?
Answer: A. Volenti non fit injuria
Volenti non fit injuria: to one who consents, no wrong is done. A spectator is taken to accept the risks ordinarily incidental to the game he has chosen to watch.
A college's disciplinary committee finds a student guilty of misconduct. One of the three committee members is the teacher who made the complaint against the student. Which principle has been most directly violated?
Answer: D. Nemo judex in causa sua
Nemo judex in causa sua: no one should be a judge in their own cause. A complainant sitting in judgment on their own complaint is the rule against bias in its plainest form. Had the student been denied a hearing, the complaint would have been under audi alteram partem.
A returning officer wrongfully refuses to let a qualified voter cast his vote. The candidate the voter wished to support wins anyway. The voter can still sue because of which maxim?
Answer: D. Injuria sine damno
Injuria sine damno: a legal right, the right to vote, was violated though no actual loss followed. These are the facts of Ashby v White (1703), where the action succeeded.
A new school opens beside an established one and charges lower fees. The older school is forced to cut its own fees and loses income. It has no legal claim against the new school because of which maxim?
Answer: B. Damnum sine injuria
Damnum sine injuria: there is real loss but no legal right has been infringed, since lawful competition is not a wrong. This is the Gloucester Grammar School case (1410).
What does the maxim 'actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea' mean?
Answer: B. An act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty
The maxim states the general requirement of criminal law that a guilty act (actus reus) must be accompanied by a guilty mind (mens rea).
What does the maxim 'ubi jus ibi remedium' mean?
Answer: C. Where there is a right, there is a remedy
Ubi jus ibi remedium: the law provides a remedy for the violation of every legal right. It is the idea on which injuria sine damno rests.
A civil court hears a property dispute between two neighbours and dismisses the suit on the merits. The decision is not appealed and becomes final. A year later the same plaintiff files a fresh suit against the same neighbour on the same claim. The second suit is barred by:
Answer: C. Res judicata
Res judicata bars a matter that has been finally decided between the same parties from being litigated again. Res sub judice applies where the earlier suit is still pending. Stare decisis is the doctrine of following precedent.

FAQ

Are legal maxims asked in CLAT?

CLAT does not ask for prior legal knowledge and gives the principle in the passage, so direct maxim questions are rare there. Passages do use these terms, and knowing them saves reading time. Tests with a legal aptitude section, such as MH-CET Law, can ask maxims directly.

Which maxims should I learn first?

Audi alteram partem, nemo judex in causa sua, res ipsa loquitur, volenti non fit injuria, injuria sine damno, damnum sine injuria, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, ignorantia juris non excusat, ubi jus ibi remedium, res judicata and caveat emptor.

What is the difference between injuria sine damno and damnum sine injuria?

Injuria sine damno is the infringement of a legal right without actual loss, and the claimant can sue. Damnum sine injuria is actual loss without the infringement of any legal right, and the claimant cannot.

Keep practising

Ready to see the full picture?

This micro-test covers one topic. The full CLAT diagnostic covers all five sections in 30 minutes and gives you a section-wise breakdown of where you actually stand.

Take the Full Diagnostic →