, LPL4802 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester
2 2026 (316703) - DUE 27 August 2026; 100% Correct
solutions and explanations.
QUESTION 1.1
The principle res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet means that “a thing done
between others ought not to prejudice another person”. The principle generally
indicates that a person should not be affected by transactions, agreements,
statements, or acts to which they were not a party. The applicant relied on this
principle in arguing that an act or agreement involving other parties should not
negatively affect his legal position.
The question is whether this principle should be regarded as a binding rule of law
or merely a legal maxim that expresses a conclusion reached after considering the
facts of a particular case.
The principle res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet is not an independent and
absolute rule of law that automatically determines the outcome of every case.
Instead, it is a legal maxim that reflects an underlying principle of fairness and
justice. Courts consider the surrounding circumstances of each case before
deciding whether an act performed between third parties should have legal
consequences for another person.
Academic writers have indicated that many legal maxims do not create legal rights
or obligations on their own. They serve as summaries of legal reasoning developed
through case law. Therefore, res inter alios acta should not be applied
mechanically but must be understood within the broader principles of evidence,
obligations, and fairness.
The principle is closely associated with the law of evidence, particularly the rule
that evidence relating to transactions or statements involving third parties is
generally inadmissible where it unfairly prejudices a person who was not involved
in those transactions. However, this rule is subject to exceptions where such
evidence is relevant and legally admissible.
In Hollington v Hewthorn, the court considered whether findings made in
previous proceedings could affect a person who was not a party to those
proceedings. The decision illustrates the importance of protecting individuals from
being bound by judgments or acts involving strangers to the dispute.¹
2 2026 (316703) - DUE 27 August 2026; 100% Correct
solutions and explanations.
QUESTION 1.1
The principle res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet means that “a thing done
between others ought not to prejudice another person”. The principle generally
indicates that a person should not be affected by transactions, agreements,
statements, or acts to which they were not a party. The applicant relied on this
principle in arguing that an act or agreement involving other parties should not
negatively affect his legal position.
The question is whether this principle should be regarded as a binding rule of law
or merely a legal maxim that expresses a conclusion reached after considering the
facts of a particular case.
The principle res inter alios acta alteri nocere non debet is not an independent and
absolute rule of law that automatically determines the outcome of every case.
Instead, it is a legal maxim that reflects an underlying principle of fairness and
justice. Courts consider the surrounding circumstances of each case before
deciding whether an act performed between third parties should have legal
consequences for another person.
Academic writers have indicated that many legal maxims do not create legal rights
or obligations on their own. They serve as summaries of legal reasoning developed
through case law. Therefore, res inter alios acta should not be applied
mechanically but must be understood within the broader principles of evidence,
obligations, and fairness.
The principle is closely associated with the law of evidence, particularly the rule
that evidence relating to transactions or statements involving third parties is
generally inadmissible where it unfairly prejudices a person who was not involved
in those transactions. However, this rule is subject to exceptions where such
evidence is relevant and legally admissible.
In Hollington v Hewthorn, the court considered whether findings made in
previous proceedings could affect a person who was not a party to those
proceedings. The decision illustrates the importance of protecting individuals from
being bound by judgments or acts involving strangers to the dispute.¹
