Legal Definitions - nul tort

Nul tort is a historical legal term originating from Law French, meaning "no wrong." In the context of English common law, it referred to a specific type of general defense used in legal actions concerning the recovery of lands or other real property. When a defendant entered a plea of nul tort, they were making a complete and absolute denial of the plaintiff's claim, asserting that they had committed no wrongful act and that the plaintiff had no legitimate basis to demand the return of the property. It was a broad challenge to the entire accusation, rather than admitting certain facts while offering an excuse.

• Example 1: Disputed Manor Ownership

  Imagine a historical scenario where Lady Beatrice sues Sir Alaric, claiming he has wrongfully taken possession of a manor house that she believes rightfully belongs to her family. In response, Sir Alaric could enter a plea of nul tort. This plea would signify his complete denial of Lady Beatrice's accusation, asserting that he had committed no wrong and was the rightful owner and possessor of the manor, thereby challenging the entire basis of her claim for its recovery.

• Example 2: Encroachment on Farmland

  Consider a dispute in medieval England where a farmer, Master Giles, accuses his neighbor, Master Hugh, of unlawfully occupying a portion of his arable land and preventing him from cultivating it. If Master Hugh were to plead nul tort, he would be declaring that he had committed no wrongful act regarding the land, denying Master Giles's claim entirely and asserting his own lawful possession of the disputed strip, effectively stating that Master Giles's demand for the property was baseless.

• Example 3: Inheritance of a Cottage

  In a historical context, if a distant relative, Martha, initiates a legal action against her cousin, Peter, claiming that he is wrongfully occupying a small cottage and its surrounding plot of land that she believes was unjustly withheld from her inheritance. Peter, in his defense, might plead nul tort. By doing so, he would be asserting that he had committed no wrong in his occupation of the cottage and land, denying Martha's claim outright and maintaining that his possession was legitimate and lawful.