Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium is a legal maxim in latin, which literally says that – where there is a wrong there is a remedy. Which means if any wrongful act is committed by the person and there is a breach of the rights of the other individual, a remedy is to be provided or else the existence of a legal right has no basis to it. Sometimes it is presumed that if any wrong is committed it means that legal duties have been omitted. However, it is not always the case, sometimes there exists a duty but it is also a wrongful act, the verdict in the situation will depend on how properly the Duty has been executed.
Once Justice Pollock opined that, Right and Wrong are contrary to each other, Rights are moral codes and ethics embedded in the circumference of the law of court. And wrong is any wrongful act which is not prescribed by the moral rules of law. Hence, the existence of duty involves a right, then there is also a possibility of the wrong. Right, Duty and Wong are not separate but one unit of similar rules and regulations. The law of tort is the development of the maxim Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium. The word “Jus” means legal authority to do or demand something. Whereas, Remedium means any person using this maxim has the right of action in the court of law. The maxim applies to the individual who has been affected of legal injury and Remedy is to be provided. For Example, if a contract has been made orally, which was supposed to be made on a stamp paper ; in such circumstances, irrecoverable damages have been caused to the victim and yet no legal remedy is available. It doesn’t mean there is legal remedy for every possible wrong. Justice Stephen has said it perfectly revising and reversing the maxim, while stating it as “ where there is no legal remedy, there is no legal wrong”.
- Where there is a right there is a remedy
The law of Equity which was developed in the English court of chancery states that, if there is a breach of right, the right is incomplete without a proper remedy. Before the law of Equity, there were very minimal remedies and writs available for the breach of Rights of an individual, when and if the remedy is not available or compensated with the suit filed the case was used to be dismissed. To remove this deficiency, the court of chancery developed the law of Equity and have the jurisdiction to decide the matters of equity and justice. The principle that all rights must have remedies is ancient and venerable. Remedies are an institutional guarantee that provides an obligation and enforcement of the law from the violators. Therefore any legal system that is domestic or international provides remedial measures, for the breach of the rights and are created and recognized by the system. International law provides for a substantial body of rules and principles governing ‘remedies’ for any breach of international obligations . A fine example at the international level is the World Trade Organisation (WTO) where several disputes are settled, with majority of it being the developing countries. Since the general agreement of trade and tariffs 1947, more developing nations have been participating in the dispute settlement system (DSS). This have issued more trust in the system, due to the transformation of WTO’s body from power based to rule based, nations have started putting faith in the DSS. However there is equal amount of scepticism particularly about the nature and content of remedies for violations of WTO rights and obligations
Essentials of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium
- Recognition of the right in the court of law is essential for the application of this maxim.
- A Wrongful act must have been done which clearly violates a persons right.
- The maxim can be used when a relief granted by the court did not satisfy the injury.
- The maxim can be used when any legal injury is caused, if no legal injury is caused the maxim Damnum sine injuria is used which means damage without injury.
Limitations of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium
- Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium is only applicable if there is any legal damage.
- The maxim Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium does not apply to moral or political wrong which are not actionable.
- The maxim is not applicable in case of public nussisance, unless the plaintiff can somehow prove more damage to him.
- The maxim cannot be used if the plaintiff was negligent or has shown negligence on the part of the plaintiff.
- The maxim is not applied to those damages where proper remedy is given, under breach of right in common law.
- No remedies are available in the matters of breach of vows, marriage or personal commitment as it takes no consideration and these promises are made on the base of trust.
Aishwarya Says:
I have always been against Glorifying Over Work and therefore, in the year 2021, I have decided to launch this campaign “Balancing Life”and talk about this wrong practice, that we have been following since last few years. I will be talking to and interviewing around 1 lakh people in the coming 2021 and publish their interview regarding their opinion on glamourising Over Work.
If you are interested in participating in the same, do let me know.
Do follow me on Facebook, Twitter Youtube and Instagram.
The copyright of this Article belongs exclusively to Ms. Aishwarya Sandeep. Reproduction of the same, without permission will amount to Copyright Infringement. Appropriate Legal Action under the Indian Laws will be taken.
If you would also like to contribute to my website, then do share your articles or poems at adv.aishwaryasandeep@gmail.com
We also have a Facebook Group Restarter Moms for Mothers or Women who would like to rejoin their careers post a career break or women who are enterpreneurs.
We are also running a series Inspirational Women from January 2021 to March 31,2021, featuring around 1000 stories about Indian Women, who changed the world. #choosetochallenge