"Equity Will Not Suffer A Wrong To Be Without A Remedy.

"

MEANING

Where there is a right there is a remedy. This idea is expressed in the Latin Maxim „ubi
jus ibi remedium‟. It means that no wrong should go undressed if it is capable of being
remedied by courts.
For EX- A conveyed a land to B for the use and in trust of C. B claimed the benefit of
the land to himself.
C had no remedy at law but the Chancery court is capable to provide the remedy
because this was in abuse of confidence and it is wrong in terms of equity

This maxim indicates the width of the scope and the basis of on which the structure of
equity rests. This maxim imports that where the common law confers a right, it gives
also a remedy or right of action for interference with or infringement of that right.

The maxim is based on the principle of reciprocity, as the rights and remedy coexist.

"If a man has a right, he must, it has been observed, have a means to vindicate and
maintain it and a remedy if he is injured in the exercise and enjoyment of it, and, it is a
vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy, for want of right and want of remedy are
reciprocal."

APPLICATION AND CASES

IN ASHBY V. WHITE1

“The case refers to the fact that Mr. Ashby wanted to cast vote in favor of his desired
candidate but was somehow unjustly refrained by Mr. White to cast vote. Later once the
result of the election were declared it was found out that the candidate in whose favor
Mr. Ashby wanted to cast vote, had actually won the election. Nevertheless Mr. Ashby
filed suit against Mr. White. The defense council took the plea that since no damage has
been caused to Mr. Ashby, the suit may very kindly be dismissed.

1
Ashby v White (1703) 92 ER 126
In cases where some document was with the defendant and it was necessary for the
plaintiff to obtain its discovery or production, recourse to the Chancery Courts had to be
made for the Common Law becoming „wrongs without remedies‟ The maxim also states
that the person whose right is being infringed has a right to enforce the infringed right
through any action before a court. All law courts are also guided with the same principle
of UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM.

The court held that the right of Mr. Ashby does not depend on the measure of damage
but on the violation of legal right and since the right to vote has been violated the court
would not hesitate to award remedy how nominal it may be” In this respect the maxim
could be referred to another established maxim Mr. Ashby sued the returning officer, it
was held that if the law gives a man a right, he must have a means to maintain it, and a
remedy, if he is injured in the enjoyment of it.

RECOGNITION

(I) In the Trust Act

(ii) The new provisions under our Constitution and in administration law like writs and
the PIL.

(iii) The Specific Relief Act- provides for equitable remedies like specific performance of
contracts, injunction, and declaratory suits

The basic principle contemplated in the maxim is that, when a person's right is violated
the victim will have an equitable remedy under law

LIMITATION

(a) The equity courts could not help where there was breach of a moral right only. Thus
only the beaches of legal rights and equitable rights were capable of being redressed

(b) Where due to his own negligence a party either destroyed or allowed to be
destroyed, the evidence in his own favor or waived his right to an equitable remedy
(C) Equity courts couldn‟t provide the relief when both right and remedy within the
jurisdiction of the Common Law Courts.

CONCLUSION

This maxim is a restatement of the broad legal principle:- Ubi jus, ibi remedium, "Where
there is a right, there is a remedy." The maxim is applied in equity in an orderly way. It
does not mean that anything goes. It calls forth recognized remedies for well-
established wrongs, wrongs that are invasions of property rights or personal or CIVIL
RIGHTS and that the law considers actionable. A court will not listen to complaints
about every petty annoyance or immoral act.

The maxim is necessarily subordinate to positive principles and cannot be applied either
to subvert established rules of law or to give the courts a jurisdiction hitherto unknown,
and it is only in a general not in a literal sense that the maxim has force.

Case law dealing with the principle of this maxim at law includes Ashby v
White2 and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents3. The application of this principle at
law was key in the decision of Marbury v. Madison, wherein it was necessary to
establish that Marbury had a right to his commission in the first place in order for Chief
Justice Marshall to make his more wide-ranging decision.

When seeking an equitable relief, the one that has been wronged has the stronger
hand. The stronger hand is the one that has the capacity to ask for a legal
remedy (judicial relief). In equity, this form of remedy is usually one of specific
performance or an injunction (injunctive relief). These are superior remedies to those
administered at common law such as damages. The Latin legal maxim is ubi jus ibi
remedium ("where there is a right there must be a remedy").

2
Ashby v White (1703) 92 ER 126
3
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)