DEFINITION OF THE MAXIM
Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium is a Latin legal maxim which means "where there is a right there is a remedy". 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. 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.
[Law of Torts] – 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.
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.
WHERE THERE IS A RIGHT; THERE IS A REMEDY
Law of equity accentuates the fact that the right is incomplete without the availability of proper remedy in case of its
breach. Before the development of law of equity the common law was restricted to a limited number of remedies.
There were only a few writs which could be invoked in case of breach of rights and if the suit was not covered by
those writs the suit had to face the dismissal. Thus a lot of rights had no remedy in case of its breach. To remove this
deficiency the courts of chancellery were established. These courts derived their jurisdiction from this rule.
EXPLANATION OF THE MAXIM:
The maxim takes its root from the Latin maxim UBI JUS IBI REMEDIUM. The principle underlined is that no
wrong should be allowed to go without redress if it is capable of being redressed by the court of justice.
LEADING CASE LAW:
The principle of the maxim was first bring into play in a renowned case “Ashby vs. White” the court discussed the
idea in following words;
“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 for want of
right and want of remedy are reciprocal”
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF THE MAXIM:
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.
LIMITATIONS ON THE MAXIM:
1. The maxim does not apply on any moral right;
2. Court can’t apply this maxim on the cases which are recognized and a proper remedy is given in case of its breach
under common law;
Where the party aggrieved acts with sheer negligence
CONCLUSION
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’
In the leading case of Ashby v. White, the Court observed, “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 for want of right and want of remedy are reciprocal”
The law of torts is said to be a development of the maxim ‘ubi jus ibi remedium’. 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. The
maxim does not mean, as it is sometimes supposed, that there is a legal remedy for every moral or political wrong.
There are many moral and political wrongs which are not recognized by law and are therefore not actionable.
So, the maxim does not say that there is legal remedy for every wrong. Justice Stephen of England has rightly
remarked that the maxim would be more intelligibly and correctly stated if it were to be reversed to say that where
there is no legal remedy, there is no legal wrong.
