UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM

(Where there is a right, there is a remedy)

(EQUITY WILL NOT SUFFER A WRONG TO BE WITHOUT A REMEDY)

1. PRELIMINARY NOTE

Equity is justice administered according to fairness as contrasted with the strictly

formulated rules of common law. This maxim laid down foundation or forms the
basic principle of a considerable portion of equity jurisdiction. The idea expressed
thus is that a wrong should not be allowed to go un-redressed if it is capable of
being redressed.

2. MEANINGS OF MAXIM

 Equity will always grant a remedy where applicable

 Equity will deviate from the common law where necessary
 Equity may create new rights and remedies
 Equity will devise and shape its remedy to fit new circumstances

3. DEFINITION OF MAXIMS

According to Walker D.M

“Maxims are short, pithy formulations of broad and general principles of
common sense and justice”.

According to SNELL
“These are not to be taken as positive laws of equity which will be applied
literally and relentlessly in their full width, but rather as trends or principles which
can be discerned in many of the detailed rules which equity has established.”

Page1
4. EVOLUTION OF MAXIMS

Generally, the maxims of equity evolved from time to time and especially began
to formulate in the time of Lord Nottingham during (1673-82). Lord Nottingham
is also known as father of modern English equity.

5. HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Historically it was reverse from the principle

“UBI JUS UBI REMEDIUM”
“Remedy was at the mercy of ruler”
6. ETYMOLOGICAL/PHILOGICAL/LINGUAL MEANINGS

a. Ubigous ---- where ever present

b. Jus------------ right
c. Ibi------------- (IBID) from that place where it was already present.
( to place the remedy at that place where it was present)

7. COMPARISON IN LITERAL MEANINGS WITH OTHER SYSTEMS

i) Parallel in Ancient Arabic

“Injustice is to remove a thing from its place”

ii) German

Rechet-----Law + right (one word for both)

8. GENERAL MEANING AND EXPLANATION OF THIS MAXIM

 A right is a right only when it can be enforced by the courts. A remediless

right is of no consequence. This maxim means that no wrong should go
un-redressed if it is capable of being remedied by courts. But it cannot
embrace every moral wrong.

 Only those rights which are suitable for judicial enforcement but which
were not enforced at common law due to its rigidity or due to some other
technical defects. The Court of Equity applied the maxim in those cases
where there was a failure of justice due to the deficiencies in law, and to
help the litigants in obtaining legal reliefs for the violation of legal rights by
offering facilities in evidence and procedure which the common law courts
did not secure.

Page1
 The maxim is to give an adequate relief where the one available in
common law court was inadequate.

9. PRINCIPLE EMBODIED/ESTABLISHED/EXEMPLIFIED/OBJECTIFIED

 The principle embodied in this maxim is that equity will interfere to protect
the right of a plaintiff, which has been rejected by the courts on some
technical faults or rigidity. Because that right still exists with the plaintiff;
leaving aside the technicalities which is probable the main function of
equity. So right and remedy co-exist with each other.
  When seeking an equitable relief, the stronger hand is that which has
been wronged. The stronger hand is that hand which 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.

10. Principle of Reciprocity/ Mutuality/ Co-operation

Right and remedy co-exist with each other. The Latin legal maxim is Ubi
Jus Ibi Remedium ("where there is a right, there must be a
remedy").

11. ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE MAXIM.

(i) Trusts and Uses

That the trustees were the legal owners of the trust property and if they
sold that trust property, the beneficiary had no legal remedy, which was
later provided by equity under this maxim.

“It was on this maxim that the court of chancery based its
interference to enforce uses and trusts.” ( SNELL )

(ii) ASHBY VS. WHITE (1704)

“That a man who has a right to vote at an election for members of

parliament, may maintain an action against the returning officer for
maliciously refusing to admit his vote, though the person for whom he
offered to vote was elected.”

In this case, in answer to the question that such a precedent would

provoke multiplicity of suits, LORD HOLT OBSERVED,

“If men will multiply injuries, actions must be multiplied too, for

Page1
every man that is injured ought to have his recompense.”

(iii) The Auxiliary Jurisdiction:

Again, to this maxim may be traced the origin of the supplementary

jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, by virtue of which suitors at law were
aided in the enforcement of their legal rights.  Without such aid these
rights would often have been “wrongs without remedies”.  For instance,
it was often necessary for a claimant in a common law action to obtain
disclosure of facts resting in the knowledge of the defendant, or of deeds,
writings or other things in his possession or power.  
 (iv) Leading Cases

ASHBY VS WHITE (1704)

LLOYDS BANK LTD VS MEDWAY U.N. CO. (1905)

12. Binding Nature of this Maxim

This maxim cannot be considered as binding in every situation which would

appear to lie within its wording but there are broadly worded principles and not
to be treated as binding rules. TINSLEY VS MILLIGAN (1993)

13. Essentials to Constitute this Maxim

a. That there is a wrong done to the plaintiff.

b. That the wrong was maliciously done
c. That it is capable of judicial enforcement and not being moral wrong
d. That the remedy is not available in ordinary legal system due to some
technical fault or due to its rigidity/inflexibility.

14. Limitations on the Maxim

i. Mere breach of moral right

ii. Jurisdiction of common law courts is involved
iii. Where remedy is available under statute
iv. Conduct of the plaintiff
v. Private remedy

Page1
vi. Public policy is involved

15. Recognition in Pakistan

The Trust Act Section 61 and 68

The Code of Civil Procedure Section 9, Order VIII Rule 4

2007 CLC 1211.

HELD.
 Section 9, C.P.C. is based on principle of law "Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium "
(where there is a right there is a remedy).

The Specific Relief Act Sections 35, 36, 37 & 38

The Transfer of Property Act Section 51

The Contract Act Section 64 & 65

16. Constitutional Basis

a. Writs
b. Administrative law
c. Public interest Litigation

17. Analysis

Thus the ultimate derivation is that this maxim indicates the width of scope and
basis on which the structure of equity rests and it is responsible for the entire
jurisdiction of equity courts to prevent failure of justice.”

General Outline of this Maxim (Overview)

1. Preliminary Note
2. Meanings of this Maxim
3. Definition of Maxims
4. Evolution of Maxims
5. Historical Context of this Maxim
6. Etymological/Grammatical/Lingual Meanings
7. Comparison in literal meanings with other systems
8. General Meaning and Explanation of this Maxim
9. Principle Embodied/Established/Exemplified/Objectified
10. Principle of Reciprocity/Mutuality/Co-operation
11. Illustrations of the Maxim

Page1
12. Binding nature of this Maxim
13. Essentials to Constitute this Maxim
14. Limitations on the Maxim
15. Recognition in Pakistan
16. Constitutional Basis
17. Analysis