De Minimis Non Curat Lex CASES

In English law, de minimis non curat lex means “the law does not concern itself with trifles”. It is not a standalone defence or cause of action. Rather, it is a threshold idea used across doctrines to filter out claims where the interference with a right or the loss suffered is so slight that the courts will not grant substantive relief.

Definition and principles

The de minimis principle reflects practicality and proportionality: the law protects real interests and meaningful harms, not negligible technicalities. It can operate (i) at liability – because the interference is too trivial to be unlawful; (ii) at remedy – because the court prefers nominal damages or refuses an injunction; or (iii) in procedure—because a minor irregularity made no difference. It does not defeat claims where Parliament has set a clear threshold, nor where the wrong is serious in kind even if modest in quantum.

Common examples

• Private nuisance: everyday, fleeting noise or odours that do not materially affect ordinary use and enjoyment are treated as de minimis and non-actionable.
• Trespass and battery: marginal, everyday physical contacts (the “give and take” of daily life) will usually not amount to battery; technical trespass may yield only nominal damages and no injunction where the impact is trivial.
• Contract: a breach that causes no measurable loss may attract only nominal damages; slight, non-prejudicial deviations can be treated as too trivial to justify termination or an injunction.
• Defamation and data protection: modern thresholds screen out trivial harm: without serious harm (or more than minimal distress in some information claims), a case may not proceed.
• Public law and procedure: minor procedural defects that make no difference to outcome are often disregarded; remedies focus on material unfairness.

Legal implications

• Liability vs remedy: sometimes de minimis negates liability (no actionable wrong); in other cases liability is recognised but the court awards nominal damages or declines an injunction.
• Evidence and thresholds: claimants should prove a real, non-trivial impact (for example, measured noise, persistent pattern, quantifiable loss). Defendants can emphasise brevity, rarity, trivial effect, and available common-sense tolerances.
• Interaction with doctrine: de minimis operates within existing rules—nuisance requires substantial and unreasonable interference; “serious harm” and similar statutory tests set firmer gates than de minimis alone.
• Costs risk: even a technical success may lead to limited or adverse costs orders if the outcome is only nominal or the relief sought was disproportionate.

Practical importance

When advising, ask: is the interference or loss more than trivial, both in degree and duration? For claimants, gather concrete proof of material impact (logs, measurements, expert evidence). For defendants, document context, short duration, and mitigation, and propose practical fixes. Reserve court time for disputes with real consequences; use undertakings or minor adjustments to resolve de minimis problems proportionately.

See also: Nominal damages; Actionable damage; Serious harm; Materiality; Injunctions; Private nuisance; Trespass; Battery; Procedural fairness.