Summum jus summa injuria is a maxim which means ‘extreme justice is extreme injustice.’
Law cannot be enforced literally per its terms to widely varying circumstances. It is hardly ever that extreme right can be administered without the danger of doing injustice, for extreme right may be administered without the danger of doing injustice, for extreme right may produce extreme wrong
The following is an example of a case law on summum jus summa injuria:
The rule of limited retroactivity permits the issue of governmental immunity to be properly raised and preserved solely by a plaintiff's pleading sufficient facts to raise the issue of the lack of a defendant's entitlement to governmental immunity. This would seem to penalize a plaintiff for his comprehensiveness in pleading, thus resulting in the ironic result that other plaintiffs who were perhaps less diligent and complete in drafting their pleadings, and who therefore kept silent on the issue of the absence of any bar to their claims due to governmental immunity, may yet reap the benefit. Thus, such a strict application of the Hyde limited retroactivity rule would appear to create some injustice. Summum jus summa injuria, strict law is sometimes the greatest injustice. [Fulton v. Pontiac General Hospital, 160 Mich. App. 728, 734 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987)].