In this case, a schoolmaster established a rival school near Gloucester Grammar School, offering lower fees and attracting students away from the plaintiff’s institution. Gloucester Grammar School claimed damages for the loss of students and revenue, arguing that the new school’s presence caused financial harm to their business.
IssuesThe court observed that although the plaintiff suffered financial harm, the competition itself was lawful. The doctrine of "ubi jus ibi remedium" requires that there be a violation of a legal right for a remedy to be provided. However, in this case, the rival schoolmaster did not violate any legal rights of Gloucester Grammar School by merely setting up a competing business. The judges noted that the establishment of a new school was within the legal rights of the defendant, and the harm caused by lawful competition does not provide grounds for a legal remedy.
DecisionThe court ruled that no damages could be claimed because lawful competition does not violate any legal right. Although Gloucester Grammar School suffered financial loss, the defendant’s actions were not tortious, as they were within his legal rights. The doctrine of "damnum sine injuria" was not applicable, as the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that their legal rights were infringed upon. Therefore, no remedy was awarded.
The Gloucester Grammar School case also illustrated the limits of the doctrine of "ubi jus ibi remedium"—a remedy can only be provided where there is a violation of a legal right, which was not the case here. The ruling solidified the freedom of trade and competition as a key legal concept.