There is a well recognised distinction between the continuance of a legal injury and the continuance of its injurious effects. The latter contemplates that there has been a legal injury once and its after-effects continue while the former contemplates that the act or omission causing infringement to legal right is being repeated from day to day.
Continuance of injurious effect does not give rise to fresh cause of action. But continuance of a legal injury gives rise to fresh cause of action. The distinction may be illustrated by examples. It is the duty of the Municipal Board to allow owners to connect their houses for the purpose of obtaining water from the main.
The act of the Board in cutting off the connection and preventing the owners from obtaining water is a continuing breach giving the owner cause of action from day to day. (1929 All. 870).
Image Source: baconlawfirm.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Failure of the wife or husband to perform her to his conjugal duties is a continuance of breach of contract or tort according as the marriage is viewed as a contract or a sacrament. The cause of action in such cases arises from day to day. On the other hand, a breach of a covenant for title is not a continuing breach.
The test as to whether a breach is continuing or not is this : if the plaintiff sues for damages, can he sue only for damages, actually accrued upon the date of suit, or may he sue for the whole of the damages accrued and prospective that the breach will cause to him ? In the former case the branch is continuing and the later it is single and final.