UNITEDWORLD SCHOOL OF LAW

LEGAL LANGUAGE ASSIGNMENT

ON

The Maxim
“Ubi jus ibi remedium”

For
Internal Evaluation
Submitted to
Ms. ARUNIMA SHASTRI

Prepared by:
Palak Katta
BBA-LLB Sem-2
Batch-2019-2024
Roll No.-1006AL0067
 DECLARATION

The text reported in the project is the outcome of my own efforts and no part of this project assignment has
been copied in any unauthorized manner and no part of it has been incorporated without due acknowledgement.

PALAK KATTA
 Table of Contents

DECLARATION...................................................................................................................................................2

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................................4

DEVELOPMENT OF Ubi jus ibi remedium.......................................................................................................4

 Equity Will Not Suffer A Wrong To Be Without A Remedy.................................................................6

ESSENTIALS OF Ubi jus ibi remedium.............................................................................................................6

LIMITATIONS OF Ubi jus ibi remedium..........................................................................................................6

 Injuria sine damnum...................................................................................................................................7

 Damnum sine injuria..................................................................................................................................7

CASE LAWS ON Ubi jus ibi remedium...............................................................................................................7

CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................................................10

BIBLIOGRAPHY...............................................................................................................................................11
 INTRODUCTION

Ubi jus ibi remedium, is a Latin maxim which means that where there is a wrong, there is a remedy. If any
wrong is committed then the law provides a remedy for that. The maxim can be phrased as that any person will
not suffer a wrong without a remedy, it means that once it is proved that the right was breached then equity will
provide a suitable remedy. This principle also underlines the fact that no wrong should be allowed to go without
any compensation if it can be redressed by a court of law. The law presumes that there is no right without a
remedy; and if all remedies are gone to enforce a right, the right in point of law ceases to exist.1

This maxim means that there is no wrong without a remedy. Whenever the common law gives a right or
prohibits an injury, it also gives a remedy. This maxim is an elementary maxim of equity jurisprudence that
there is no wrong without a remedy.2

Justice Pollock said that right and wrong are contrary to each other. Right actions are those which are
prescribed by moral rules, wrong actions are those which are not prescribed by moral rules or which are
prohibited by law. In case of legal action, anything which is wrong is not recognized by laws. It is presumed
that whenever a wrong is committed it means that legal duties have been omitted. Hence the existence of duty
involves a right then it also provides the possibility of wrong. Duty, right and wrong are not separate but they
are the different legal aspects of the same rules and events. Sometimes it happens that there may be both duties
and wrong, and the wrong does not happen only when duty is truly justified. If there exists a duty to do
something and if it is properly done then it is said that the duty is discharged and the man who was legally
bound is now freed.3

DEVELOPMENT OF Ubi jus ibi remedium

The law of torts is said to be a development of the maxim ubi jus ibi remedium  (there is no wrong without a
remedy). Jus signifies the ‘legal authority to do or to demand something’; and remedium may be defined to be
the right of action, or the means given by law, for the recovery or assertion of a right. If a man has a right, “he
must of necessity have a means to vindicate and maintain it and a remedy if injured in the exercise or
enjoyment of it; and indeed it is a vain thing to imagine a right without a remedy; want of right and want of
remedy are reciprocal.4
1
Saumya Saxena, Ubi jus ibi remedium, iPLEADERS (Apr. 11, 2020, 6:35 PM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/ubi-jus-ibi-remedium/
2
Shivani Rani, Ubi jus ibi remedium est, LAW TIMES JOURNAL (Apr. 11, 2020, 6.35 PM), http://lawtimesjournal.in/ubi-jus-ibi-
remedium-est/
3
Saumya Saxena, Ubi jus ibi remedium, iPLEADERS (Apr. 11, 2020, 6:35 PM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/ubi-jus-ibi-remedium/
Discuss the meaning of the term ubi jus ibi remedium, GKTODAY (Apr. 11, 2020, 7:12 PM), https://www.gktoday.in/gk/discuss-the-
4

meaning-of-the-term-ubi-jus-ibi-remedium/
The circuit court of appeals of the United States of America in the case of Leo feist v. young5 observed that “it
is an elementary maxim of the equity of jurisprudence and there is no wrong without a remedy”.

The maxim does not mean, as it is sometimes supposed, that there is a legal remedy for every moral or political
wrong. The maxim means only that legal wrong and legal remedy are correlative terms; and it would be more
intelligibly and correctly stated, if it were reversed, so as to stand, “where there is no legal remedy, there is no
legal wrong.”   Again, speaking generally, there is in law no right without a remedy; and, if all remedies for
enforcing a right are gone, the right has from practical point of view ceased to exist. The correct principle is that
wherever a man has right the law should provide a remedy and the absence of a remedy is evidence but is not
conclusive that no right exists.6

Wrongs are of many kinds which include the moral and political wrong but they might not be actionable or they
does not give enough reasons to take legal actions as they are not recognized by law. The maxim does not states
that every wrong committed will have a legal remedy.

For example, a contract which was required to be made on stamped paper may be made orally; in such
circumstances, irrecoverable harm may be caused to other person and yet no legal remedy is available.7

Thus, the maxim does not mean that there is a remedy for every possible wrong. It is appropriately said
by Justice Stephen that maxim would be correctly stated if maxim were to be reversed to say that “where there
is no legal remedy, there is no legal wrong.8

In the popular case of Ashby V White9, it was held that, “ When the law clothes a man with a right he must
have means to vindicate and maintain it and 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 are reciprocal”.

When there is no legal remedy, there is no wrong. Unless and until a proper legal authority to check injustice is
there is the society, wrongs cannot be defined and hence their definition remains vague.

Equity Will Not Suffer A Wrong To Be Without A Remedy

It is the traditional purpose of equity to find solutions in lawsuits. Where money will not pay for the injury,
equity has the authority to find another remedy.10

5
Leo Feist v. Young, 138 F.2d 972, (1943).
6
ibid
7
Saumya Saxena, Ubi jus ibi remedium, iPLEADERS (Apr. 11, 2020, 7:00 PM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/ubi-jus-ibi-remedium/
8
ibid
9
Ashby v White, 92 ER 126, (1703).
10
Maxim- equity Will Not Suffer A Wrong To Be Without A Remedy, LAW JRANK (Apr. 11, 2020, 7.40 PM),
https://law.jrank.org/pages/8490/Maxim--Equity-will-suffer-wrong-be-without-remedy.html
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.11

When there is a breach of rights, only a few writs are there which can be filed and in any circumstances the suit
is not covered under the writs then the suit is said to be dismissed or it will get dismissed. In order to cope this
deficiency the concept of a Court of Chancery was developed and it was held that let the jurisdiction decide the
matters relating to equity and justice.

ESSENTIALS OF Ubi jus ibi remedium

 1. This maxim can be invoked only where a right exists and that right is recognized by the law of court;
 2. Secondly, a wrong must have been done to the right in such a manner that this right is considered to
have been violated clearly without any ambiguity.
 3. Thirdly, this maxim comes into play only if law does not provide either any relief or provides an
inadequate relief for the breach of this right.12

LIMITATIONS OF Ubi jus ibi remedium

 The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium does not apply to moral and political wrong which are not actionable.

 This maxim is not applied to those cases in which proper remedy is given in case of breach of right
under common law.

 If there is no legal damage which has been caused to any person then this maxim will not be applicable.

 No remedies are available in case of breach of marriage vows or personal commitment as these all are
the promises made without consideration and are based on trust.

 This maxim is also not applicable in case of public nuisance unless and until a plaintiff shows that he
suffered more injury than other members or peoples of the society.

11
ibid
12
EnChristed, What does Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium Means???, WORDPRESS (Apr. 11, 2020, 7.48 PM),
https://enchristed.wordpress.com/2017/07/03/what-does-ubi-jus-ibi-remedium-means/
  This maxim is not applicable where the plaintiff is negligent or there is negligence on the part of the
plaintiff.13

Injuria sine damnum

It means damage without any injury. This is a legal maxim which means no damage has been caused to the
plaintiff but he has suffered injury. The plaintiff need not prove the damages but he has to prove that some legal
injury has been caused to him by the act of the defendant. The injury suffered by the plaintiff is not a physical
injury but the legal rights of the plaintiff are violated and compensation is awarded to the plaintiff for the loss
caused to him.14

Damnum sine injuria

This maxim means damage without any injury, no injury has been caused to the plaintiff but he suffered
damage. The plaintiff’s legal rights are not violated. If legal rights are not violated but injury has been caused to
the plaintiff then in such situation plaintiff can bring an action against the defendant and generally they are not
actionable unless there is a legal right present.15

CASE LAWS ON Ubi jus ibi remedium

Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Promod Gupta & Ors.16, the court held that the principle of ubi jus ibi
remedium is recognized as a basic principle of the theory or philosophy of law. The Supreme Court also held
that it is the duty of the courts to protect and maintain the right of parties and help them instead of denying them
relief.

In Ashby vs White,17 the plaintiff was a qualified voter and he was detained from giving a vote in a
parliamentary election by the defendant who was a police officer. The party to whom he wanted to vote had

13
Saumya Saxena, Ubi jus ibi remedium, iPLEADERS (Apr. 11, 2020, 9:00 PM), https://blog.ipleaders.in/ubi-jus-ibi-remedium/
14
ibid
15
ibid
16
Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta & Ors., SLT 2003 267(1).
17
Ashby v White, 92 ER 126, (1703).
won the election and the plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant stating that he was detained from giving a
vote and his right to vote was infringed and also claimed a certain amount of compensation for the damage
caused to him. The defendant in his defence said that the party to whom he wanted to vote had won the election
and therefore no damage and injury was caused to him.

The court held that no damage or injury was caused as the candidate for whom the plaintiff wanted to vote had
won the election but his right to vote was violated. To restrain a person from giving vote is a civil wrong and
therefore the plaintiff had the right to seek remedy from the court of law. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium was
applied in this case and the plaintiff was awarded some amount of compensation. 

In D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal18, Mr. D.K. Basu who was working as the executive chairman in legal
aid services, West Bengal, a non-political organization registered on 26-08-1986 under the Societies
Registration Act19. He wrote a letter addressing the Chief justice of India telling him about certain news that
was published in newspapers namely the Indian Express and The Telegraph regarding the death of a person in
police lockups and custody.

After hearing this case Supreme Court issued some guidelines which need to be followed during the arrest of an
accused person. The court further said that a mere declaration of violence in police custody or judicial custody
is a legal wrong and does not provide any remedy to the victim or family of victim on the death of the victim.
Only giving punishment to the victim is not sufficient. To file a civil suit for compensation is a long process
and compensation should be provided to the person who sustained injury. The quantum of compensation should
be decided considering the circumstances of the case.

In Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir20, the petitioner was MLA of Jammu and Kashmir parliamentary
assembly. While he was on his way to attend the parliamentary session he was wrongfully arrested by a police
officer and he was restrained from attending the parliamentary session. He was not presented before the
magistrate in time and he had a legal right to attend the meeting. His fundamental right under Article 2121 of the
Constitution was also violated. At last Supreme Court held that the defendants were responsible and awarded
Rs.50,000 as compensation to the petitioner for the infringement of his fundamental right.

In Maretti v. William22, the defendant was the owner of the bank, and the plaintiff’s fund was deposited in the
defendant’s bank. The plaintiff had sufficient balance in his account in spite of that the defendant refused to

18
Dilip K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 416.
19
The Societies Registration Act 1860.
20
Bhim Singh vs. State of J and K and Ors. MANU 1985 SC 0064.
21
INDIAN CONST. art 21.
22
Maretti v. William, (1930).
honour cheque to him. The court held that the defendant is liable for the loss caused to the plaintiff. The
maxim ubi jus ibi remedium was applied as the plaintiff’s legal right was violated and defendants were liable to
pay damages.

In Shivkumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi23, the Supreme court held that where statutory
enactments does not provide any remedy but only creates rights and liabilities, if  any person complains of his
rights being violated or wrongly affected such person can approach the civil court on the basis of the principle
of legislation that where there is a right, there is a remedy.

In the case of C.Veera Thevar vs The Secretary To Government24, the court held that there is no wrong without
a remedy. The laws say that in every case where a person is wronged and caused injury then should be
provided. Mere declaration of invalidity or death in lockup does not provide any remedy to a person whose
fundamental right is violated.

CONCLUSION

The Equity Courts are the court of justice. Any person who’s rights are being violated stand a chance and has a
right to be present before the court of law. The maxim does not provide a remedy for each and every wrong.
There consists the political and moral rights recognized by the law and the law does not provide a remedy for
23
Shivkumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., 1993 (3) SCC 161.
24
C.Veera Thevar vs The Secretary To Government, 2010.
that. The basic concept behind this maxim is that no wrong will be unredressed if it can be remedied by the
court of law. The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium is true as no right exists without a remedy. The law of torts has
accepted this maxim as this doctrine of common law in England provides a remedy in every case for every
wrong.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

WEBSITES:
https://blog.ipleaders.in/ubi-jus-ibi-remedium/
http://lawtimesjournal.in/ubi-jus-ibi-remedium-est/

https://www.gktoday.in/gk/discuss-the-meaning-of-the-term-ubi-jus-ibi-remedium/

https://law.jrank.org/pages/8490/Maxim--Equity-will-suffer-wrong-be-without-remedy.html
https://enchristed.wordpress.com/2017/07/03/what-does-ubi-jus-ibi-remedium-means/

STATUTES:

The Societies Registration Act, 1860

The Constitution of India Act, 1950

CASES CITATED:

Leo Feist v. Young, 138 F.2d 972, (1943).

Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Pramod Gupta & Ors., SLT 2003 267(1).

Ashby v White (1703) 92 ER 126.

Dilip K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal and Ors. (1997) 1 SCC 416.

Bhim Singh vs. State of J and K and Ors. MANU 1985 SC 0064.

Maretti v. William, (1930).

Shivkumar Chadha v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors., 1993 (3) SCC 161.

C.Veera Thevar vs The Secretary To Government, 2010.