NEW LAW COLLEGE

Name: Karishma Nilesh Shah

Class: F.Y.LLB ‘D’
Roll No.: 349
Subject: Legal Language

1. Introduction:
A Legal Maxim is an established principle or proposition. The Latin term, apparently a
variant on maxima, is not to be found in Roman law with any meaning exactly analogous to
that of a legal maxim in the Medieval or modern sense of the word, but the treatises of many
of the Roman jurists on Regular definitions, and Sententiae juris are, in some measure,
collections of maxims. Most of the Latin maxims developed in the Medieval era in European
countries that used Latin as their language for law and courts.
The maxims of statutory interpretation are interpretive guidelines that are typically expressed
in Latin phrases. Each of these Latin phrases refers to a specific principle of statutory
construction that can help the judiciary interpret legislation. It creates us a statutory
grammar. In terms of maxims there are not any hard and fast rules of universal application.
The maxims are more similar to rules of arithmetic probability than to prescriptive rules of
grammar that apply in all cases. While maxims often describe the result that ought to be
reached when particular problems of interpretation arise, they differ from true grammatical
rules in that the court is free to ignore the maxims whenever it deems reliance on a maxim
inappropriate. Rather than binding a court and forcing it to reach a pre-ordained construction
of a legislative passage, the maxims simply describe what drafters probably meant through
the use of specific patterns of language. For this reason, it is best to regard the maxims as
sources of argument rather than as binding rules that force the court to render particular
decisions. Used correctly, the maxims can provide creative counsel with a series of highly
persuasive arguments that are useful in cases involving legislation. Each of the maxims
discussed here is linked to a particular pattern of language that typically gives rise to the need
for judicial construction. Where these patterns of language occur, the maxims lead directly to
a set of logical inferences that explain why the relevant pattern of language typically appears
in legislation. The maxims are tied directly to the logic underlying linguistic patterns.
Maxims draws the courts' attention to this logic, allowing lawyers and judges to make
extremely useful arguments and predictions concerning the meaning that may be attributed to
legislative texts. The best way to understand the maxims is through the use of examples; the
next section accordingly presents brief discussions of four of the more useful maxims of
construction. They represent a small fraction of such maxims, but a study of their purpose
and rationale will assist an understanding of the general nature of maxims.
2. Various Legal Maxims:

2.1Ubi jus ibi remedium

It 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. 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.
The law of tort is said to be the development of the maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium. The word
“jus” means legal authority to do something or to demand something. The word “remedium”
means that the person has the right of action in the court of law. The literal meaning of the
maxim is where there is a wrong there is a remedy.
The circuit court of appeals of the United States of America in the case of Leo feist v. young
observed that “it is an elementary maxim of the equity of jurisprudence and there is no wrong
without a remedy”.
This maxim also says that there is no remedy without any wrong and the persons whose right
is being violated has a right to stand before the court of law. This principle also states that if
the rights are available to a person then it is required to be maintained by that person only and
remedy is available only when he is injured in the exercise of duty or enjoyment of it; It is
useless to imagine and think a right without a remedy. It is necessary to keep in mind that
both rights violated and the remedy sought or to be obtained should be legal. There are many
moral and political wrong but are not actionable or it does not give many sufficient reasons to
take legal action as they are not recognized by law. The maxim does not mean that there is a
legal remedy for each and every wrong committed.
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.
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.
Where there is a right, there is a remedy
Law of equity highlights the facts that if there is a breach of right then the right which is
breached is incomplete without availability of proper remedy. The common laws were
restricted to a limited number of remedies until the concept of law of equity was developed.
In case of breach of rights, there are only a few writs which can be filed and if in any case the
suit is not covered under the writs then the suit will be dismissed. There are so many rights
available but no remedy is available in case of its breach. To remove this deficiency the
concept of a court of chancery came into existence and have the jurisdiction to decide matters
relating to equity and justice.

Essentials of Ubi jus ibi remedium

The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium can be applied only where the right exists, and that right
should be recognized by the court of law;
A wrongful act must have been done which violates the legal rights of a person clearly.This
maxim can be used only when sufficient relief has not been provided by the court to the
person who sustained the injury.This maxim is applicable if any legal injury had been caused
to any person, if no legal injury has been caused then the maxim damnum sine injuria will be
used which means damage without any legal injury.

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.
 This maxim is not applicable where the plaintiff is negligent or there is negligence on the
part of the plaintiff.

Case laws on ubi jus ibi remedium

 Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Promod Gupta & Ors., 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, 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 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.

2.2Actio personalis moritur cum persona

Meaning
A personal right of action dies with the person.

Explanation and Origin

The maxim is first quoted in a case from 1496, where a woman against whom a defamation
judgment was issued died before paying the damages to the tortfeasor.
It has been argued by academics and acknowledged by the courts that notwithstanding the
Latinate form in which the proposition is expressed its origins are less antiquated. It has been
described by one Lord Chancellor (Viscount Simon) as “not in fact the source from which a
body of law has been deduced, but a confusing expression, framed in the solemnity of the
Latin tongue, in which the effect of death upon certain personal torts was inaccurately
generalised”
It is the principle of early law that the death of either of party to a personal duty takes away
all remedy and destroys the duty.
In English law, the principle is usually put in the form actio personalis moritur cum persona,
an expression of uncertain but post-classical origin. The doctrine is embodied and not
peculiar to common law system. The idea belongs to primary strata in universal law. In
modern times it has been gradually limited by judicial decisions and is now being still further
restricted by legislation.

Illustration
If A commits battery on B and either party dies, the right of action which accrued to B by the
reason of the battery is taken away. But if A commits a battery upon B, or do other injury to
him, any right of action which accrues to third person will not be affected by the death of B ,
so far as the application of the maxim in question is concerned.

Case Law
 Hambly vs. Trott
The action of trover was subjected to scrutiny in order to ascertain whether it is so far
recuperatory as to be maintainable after the death of the tortfeasor. Lord Mansfield saw that
the remedy savored strongly of property, but not sufficiently so to prevent the right of action
from perishing with the person.
 Pinchon’s case
This case raised a still more difficult problem. Fitzerbert had said that the debt was dead, like
the testator.
 Baker vs. Bolton
This case arose: The defendants were the proprietors of a stage coach , on the top of which
the plaintiff and his wife were travelling from Portsmouth to London. The coach was
overturned, and the plaintiff’s wife was so badly hurt that she died a month later. The plaintiff
brought an action for negligence and sought to recover for the loss of service and consortium.
It will be noted that the maxim actio personalis did not apply and there was nothing to show
that the defendant’s conduct was felonious. Hence, the doctrine of merger was not applicable.

2.3Volenti Non Fit Injuria

In the law of torts, there is a duty on every person do acts with reasonable care in order to
avoid any harm which may occur due to their failure of taking such care. For e.g., If a person
is driving his car, he has a duty to drive the car safely and within speed limits so that no
accident occurs which can also harm any other person. This is the general rule in torts but
there are certain exceptions which are allowed in these cases and these called as defences to
tort. Under these defences, a defendant can escape liability and volenti non-fit injuria is also
one such defence which is available for the defendant.
In case a person gives his consent to doing of an act which leads to him getting injured, then
even if an injury is caused by the other person, he cannot claim any damages from that person
because the act was one for which he voluntarily consented. The consent of the plaintiff acts
as a defence and this defence is called volenti non fit injuria which means to a willing person
no injury happens.

Illustration
If A has a bike whose brakes do not work and B knowing about the conditions of the bike
still chooses to sit on it with A driving it and due to the failure of such brakes they both
sustain injuries in an accident, B cannot claim relief from A because he had voluntarily
consented to sit on the bike.
But in the above illustration, if B was not aware of the conditions of brakes and then he
sustained injuries sitting in it, he would not be stopped from claiming damages from A
because here B did not give his consent to accept the risk of getting injured due to failure of
the brakes.

Elements of Volenti non-fit injuria

For the application of the defence of volenti non fit injuria there are some essential elements
or conditions which should be present in a case and only when they are fulfilled, this defence
can be taken to prevent liability.
There are 2 essential elements in this defence:
 The plaintiff has the knowledge of the risk
 The plaintiff with the knowledge of risk has voluntarily agreed to suffer the harm.
Thus, whenever the plaintiff is aware of the possibility of harm which is likely to be caused
by an act and when he still accepts to do that act and therefore agrees to suffer the injury, a
defendant is relieved of his liability.
But only having knowledge about the risk is not enough for the application of this defence, It
is known as Scienti non fit injuria, which means that mere knowledge does mean consent to
the risk. Thus having knowledge is only a partial fulfilment of the conditions for the
application of volenti non fit injuria.

Illustration:
A goes for bungee jumping and he knows that he might get injured by it but he still decides to
do it and as a result, he suffers injury despite all the necessary care being taken by the
organisers. Here A cannot claim damages from the organisers because he had full knowledge
of the risks and he had voluntarily agreed to suffer that injury by choosing to do bungee
jumping.

Burden of proof
In the cases where the defendant is taking the defence of volenti non fit injuria, the burden of
proof is on him to show that the plaintiff had full knowledge of the act and he had consented
to the risk involved in the act and the defendant has to show that the plaintiff was also aware
of the extent of risk which was involved in the act for successfully taking this defence.

Consent of the plaintiff

The consent of the plaintiff is very important in the defence of volenti non fit injuria because
only when he voluntarily gives his consent to an act, the defendant can take this defence.

Consent of the Plaintiff must be free

When a plaintiff gives his consent for an act such consent should be free from any coercion,
fraud or any other such means by which the free consent can be affected.
For e.g., A has a heart problem and he goes to a hospital for surgery. There he is informed by
the surgeons that the required surgery is very complicated and there is a chance of the surgery
failing which can cause his death. If A gives his consent to have the surgery and the surgeon
despite taking all reasonable care in doing the surgery is not able to save A, then the surgeon
cannot be held liable because A had given his consent for it and this consent was given freely.
In case the consent of a person is not free, the defendant cannot claim this defence to escape
liability and he will be held liable for damage caused.
For e.g., A having heart problem goes to a surgeon and he is told that he needs surgery to
which he agrees. During the surgery, the surgeon removes one kidney of A without his
knowledge. In this case, even though the surgery is successful the surgeon will be held liable
because A did not give his consent to the removal of his kidney.
Volenti non fit injuria and Contributory negligence
Both contributory negligence and volenti non fit injuria are used as a defence by the
defendant to escape liability but they differ from each other.
In contributory negligence, the plaintiff who has suffered an injury is also at fault along with
the defendant and therefore the quantum of damages which he can be awarded is reduced in
proportion to the degree of his negligence in the act which caused him injury. Thus, both the
parties are at fault in such a case and therefore this is a partial defence available to the
defendant.

Illustration
A gets hit by a car while crossing a road, which was being driven by B and he drove it rashly
and over speed limit due to which A sustained many injuries. But this accident happened
because A decided to cross the road even though the traffic signal was on and thus the
pedestrians could not cross it until the signal stopped for the vehicles. Here both A and B are
at fault and therefore even though B will be held liable, the damages which he has to provide
will be reduced because A was also at fault and thus the defence of contributory negligence
applies here,
In volenti non fit injuria, the defendant is completely exempted from his liability because of
plaintiff’s consent and thus it is a total defence.

2.4 De minimis non curat lex

An abbreviated form of the Latin Maxim de minimis non curat lex, “law is not concerned
with small things.” A legal doctrine by which a court refuses to consider trifling things. The
de minimis legal history dates back to the fifteenth century.
In a lawsuit, the de minimis doctrine is applied by a court to avoid resolving trivial matters
that are not worthy of judicial scrutiny. Its application sometimes leads to an action being
dismissed, especially when the only redress being sought is for a nominal sum, such as a
dollar. When appropriate, the appellate courts also use the de minimis doctrine
It is a principle of common law that stipulates that judges will not sit in judgment or take
notice of extremely minor violations of the law. In accordance with this Maxim, rationale
citizens would consider an appeal for trivial matters to be a complete waste of time and
resources. It will bring disrepute to the judicial system.
A legal term which means too small to be meaningful or taken into account; immaterial. As a
matter of policy, the law does not encourage parties to bring legal action where the impact of
the breach is negligible for technical breaches of rules or agreements. De minimis exceptions
are commonly included in contracts to limit the use of covenants or other restrictions so that
they do not apply in circumstances where the failure to comply with the restriction has
negligible impact.
This maxim is also recognized by Section 95 of IPC.
Illustration
 A promised B they’ll go watch a movie together on Sunday. A did not appear at the
theaters, however, B suffered mental trauma and agony. B sued A for damages. The court
will dismiss B’s appeal here because the law does not take into account trivial issues.
 X drives at a high speed along a dusty road and his motor wheels throw a little dust on Y,
a pedestrian’s clothes. Here X, on the basis of the maxim de minimis non curat lex, is not
liable for the tort as the matter is trivial in nature.
 X walks through the Y’s land for the first time, without Y’s consent, without causing any
damage to Y’s land. If for once, it is a trivial matter, and the maxim would protect him,
but if X repeats, over and over again, to establish his rights on the Y’s land, it will not
remain a trivial matter, and it will become a tort, and the maxim will not protect X.

Case Study
 State (Delhi Administration) v. Puran Mal, A.I.R. 1985 S.C. 741.
In consideration of this Latin legal maxim, the court examined the adulteration of food
articles and argued that a food item unfit for human consumption can not be considered
to be covered by the de minimis non curat lex rule.
 State of Bihar and Ors v. Harihar Prasad Debuka and Ors., A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1119.
Checking documents or filling in and submitting forms and returns, detouring to a public
weighbridge and the like can be an inconvenience and the court can apply the maxim ‘ de
minimis non curat lex ‘ unless it is shown to be unreasonable and not in the public
interest.
 Chunilal Jethalal v. Ahmedabad Borough Municipality.
The learned judge rightly held that the words “kept for use within the borough” meant
that they were kept for normal use within the borough, and no doubt where a vehicle is
kept outside the borough for normal use, an occasional user within the borough could be
rejected on the basis of the principle of de minimis non curat lex.

2.5 Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt

Meaning
The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep.

Explanation and Origin

Latin: the law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep
thereupon.
Law will help only those who are vigilant.
Law will not assist those who are careless of his/her right. In order to claim one’s right,
she/he must be watchful of his/her right. Only those persons, who are watchful and careful of
using his/her rights, are entitled to the benefits of law. Law confers rights on persons who are
vigilant of their rights.
Usually, law prescribes statutory limitations for enforcing one’s relief against another. One
cannot institute a suit after the prescribed statutory period. A person who has kept mum
during the statutory period cannot claim for the enforcement of right after the statutory
limitation.

Illustration
Art. 19 of The Limitation Act of 1963 says that for money payable for money lent – Period of
limitation is 3 years – Time from which period begins to run: When the loan is made.This
means, when the money is lent as loan, a suit for recovery of that amount has to be filed
within three years from the day on which the money was lent.
If X lent Rs.1,00,000/- to Y on 01.01.2000, if X want to file a suit against Y for the recovery
of the same, he/she need to file the suit within three years, i.e., 31.12.2002. If the suit is filed
after 31.12.2002, the Court will dismiss the same on the ground that the claim is barred by
limitation.

Case Reference
 Tilokchand Motichand & Others vs H.B. Munshi & Another
In this case forcement of the maxim, Vigilantibus, non dormientibus jura subveniunt.
Under peculiar circumstances, however, excusing or justifying the delay, courts of equity
would not refuse their aid in furtherance of the rights of the party; since in such cases
there was no presence to insist upon laches or negligence, as a ground for dismissal of
the suit; and in one case carried back the account over a period of fifty years.
 B.L. Sreedhar & Ors vs K.M. Munireddy (Dead) And Ors.
In this case it was held that Delay defeats equities, or, equity aids the vigilant and not the
indolo Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt.”
 Smt. Vanka Radhamanohari vs Vanke Venkata Reddy And Ors.

In this case it was held that The general rule of limitation is based on the Latin maxim:
vigilantibus, et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt (the vigilant, and not the sleepy, are
assisted by the laws). That maxim cannot be applied in connection with offences relating
to cruelty against women.