This article on legal phrase, “Actionable Per Se” by Sahajpreet Bhusari explains the meaning of the legal phrase along with illustrations for a better understanding. Origin and Meaning Actionable Per Se is a legal phrase that originated in Australian Law. Actionable means ‘action/ act’ and ‘per se’ (Latin term) means by itself and hence, the phrase literally means an act or action punishable by itself and which does not require any proof of...
This article on legal phrase, “Actionable Per Se” by Sahajpreet Bhusari explains the meaning of the legal phrase along with illustrations for a better understanding.
Origin and Meaning
Actionable Per Se is a legal phrase that originated in Australian Law. Actionable means ‘action/ act’ and ‘per se’ (Latin term) means by itself and hence, the phrase literally means an act or action punishable by itself and which does not require any proof of damage.
Explanation
This maxim is applicable in cases of torts. In torts, generally, proof of damage/ evidentiary value is required but there are certain torts that are actionable per se, and no proof of damage is required. Such a tort is actionable simply because of its happening. For example, libel or slander (types of defamation).
Application
The maxim is applicable in cases such as that of assault, battery, false imprisonment, libel (written defamation), trespass, etc. where the act itself is the proof and no other proof is required to make the wrongdoer liable for the same. It is insignificant in such cases if the plaintiff has suffered any damage as the result of the wrongful act.
Illustrations
- Right when A was going to sit on the chair, B pulls it and A falls. Irrespective of whether or not any harm was caused to A, the offence of assault has been committed and A will be punishable under Section 352 of Indian Penal Code.
- A, unaware of the fact that B is in the godown locks him inside. A will be liable for false imprisonment since the act is actionable per se.
Important Case Laws
In the case of Ashby v. White[1], the defending officer prevented the plaintiff who was completely eligible to vote to register his vote. In spite of the same, the candidate for whom the plaintiff was going to vote won the elections. The court, in this case, referred to the maxim actionable per se and held that the defending officer is liable for depriving the plaintiff of exercising his right to vote.
In the case of Srikant Roy v. Satcori Shaha[2], the maxim was applied and the plaintiff was made punishable for the act of giving false evidence in the course of judicial proceedings.
Reference
[1] (1703) 92 ER 126.
[2] 3 C.L.R. 181
- Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary and Entrance Exams
- Legal Bites Academy – Ultimate Test Prep Destination
