Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium is said in Latin term which suggests ‘Where there’s a right, there’s a remedy’. This means if there’s any violation of the right; the law provides a remedy to the affected person. The maxim will be expressed as that as a person won’t endure wrong while not a remedy, it implies that after it’s incontestablethat the right was penetrated then the worth will give a reasonable remedy. This guideline likewise underlines the way that no wrong ought to be permitted to abandon any remuneration if it very well may be reviewed by a courtroom. The law presumes that there is no right without a remedy; and if all cures are gone to implement a right, the right in the purpose of law stops to exist.
Keyword: remedy, rights, tort, essential.
Rights and duties are correlated. Every right has the corresponding duty attached to it, like a coin that has two sides- Rights and Duties. If the state gives the Right to life to a citizen, it also constitutes the corresponding duty i.e. duty not to deprive others Right to life. Therefore if a Right which is recognized by State is violated then the state provides a remedy. The Legal Maxim Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium means that “Where there’s a right, there’s a remedy”. The maxim can be expressed as that any individual won’t endure wrong without a remedy, it implies that once it is demonstrated that the right was violated the law will provide a reasonable remedy. The universal declaration of Human Rights proclaims in Article 8. “Everyone has the right to a good remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the Constitution or bythe other law”. In this article, I have discussed the development of this legal maxim Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium with respective case laws.
Where there’s a right, there’s a remedy
The fundamental elements of the maxim are ‘Jus’ and ‘remedium’. Jus means the legal authority to do or to demand something; and remedium may be defined as the right of a person to approach the Court of Law for the wrong done to him, or the means given by law, for the recovery or assertion of a right. The principle means whenever one’s right is violated, the law provides opportunities like to recover from the damage caused by the wrong.
For a remedy to exit, there should be a breach of a legal right. And if there’s no legal remedy then there exists a proof that there is no right. This means if a man a right, the Law has to provide a remedy in case of breach of that right. If there is no remedy, it shows us that there is no existence of the legal right.
On the off chance that a man has a right, “he should of need have a way to vindicate and keep up it and a remedy whenever harmed in the activity or delight in it; and to be sure it is a vain thing to envision a right without a remedy; the need of right and need of remedy are proportional. The maxim doesn’t mean, as it is now and then assumed, that there is a legitimate remedy for each good or political wrong. Numerous good and political wrongs are not perceived by law and are in this way not significant.
Thus, the test to know whether the defendant should or should not be liable is not whether the plaintiff has suffered any loss or not but the real test is whether any lawful right vested in the plaintiff, has been violated or not.
Development of Ubi jus ibi remedium
The law of civil wrong is alleged to be the development of the maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium. The word “jus” means that the legal authority to do something or to demand something. The word “remedium” meansthe person has the right of action within the court of law. The literal meaning of the maxim is wherever there’s a wrong there’s a remedy.
The circuit court of appeals of the United States of America within the case of Leo feist v. young.
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’s injured within the exercise of duty or enjoyment of it; it’s useless to imagine and assume a right while not 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 doesn’t mean that there’s a legal remedy for every and each 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 doesn’t mean that there’s a remedy for each 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’s a right, there’s a remedy
Law of equity highlights the facts that if there’s a breach of right then the right that is broken is incomplete while not convenience of proper remedy. The common laws were restricted range to a limited number of remedies tillthe concept of law of equity was developed. Just 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 obtainable however no remedy is offered 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
Limitations of ubi jus ibi remedium
Injuria sine damno
Violation of legal right without any causing any damage or loss to the plaintiff is called Injuria sine damno
These are of two kinds of tort –
Actionable per se
Even if there is no proof of the damage caused, it’s actionable. E.g. If A’ trespasses B’s land, here even though there’s no damage caused, the action of trespass is itself violates the right of A
It’s only actionable upon proof of the damage caused by an act.
In injuria sine damno, which here is 1st kind, the plaintiff need not have to prove that he has suffered some damage or loss due to the defendant’s act. I.e. there is injuria. The plaintiff has to prove that his legal right is violated, if that’s convinced in Court of Law then the defendant will be made liable to pay damages.
Damnum sine injuria
Damnum sine injuria means incurring loss or damage by the plaintiff without any violation of Rights. I.e. If B exercises his right by which A is suffered a monetary loss but not violated any right, this is not actionable
In the case of Mayor of Bradford v. Pickles, the plaintiff was drawing water and supplying it to the people from a well, the respondent, thought of selling his land which is adjacent to the plaintiff’s land to the plaintiff but negotiations failed. So the respondent dug well in his land and started using, because of this the plaintiff’s well was insufficient to supply its groundwater. So the plaintiff approached the court invoking that the defendant has dug the well with a malafied intent. But the court held the respondent only exercised his right and said it’s not actionable.
Notable Case Laws
In the foundational case of English Tort law Ashby v. White , is a significant case relating to the violation of right and remedy provided by law. The plaintiff Mr. Ashby is a registered voter, but he was prevented from exercising this right i.e. Right to Vote by the public officer Mr. White. The candidate, who he would have voted ultimately, won the election. Now arises a question of whether there’s a violation of Right and if so what does the damage occur. The court held that however, the plaintiff has suffered any damage as the candidate he wished to vote for won the election, his right has been infringed. And he was prohibited to enforce his basic and important right and civil wrong was committed by the defendant. Therefore the plaintiff was awarded compensation. In this case the maxim, Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium was applied to render justice to the affected party.
Holt, C.J. said that “If man can multiply injuries, action should be multiplied too: for each man who is injured ought to have recompense.”
In the case of Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir ,the applicant was MLA of Jammu and Kashmir parliamentary gathering. While he was en route to go to the parliamentary meeting, he was improperly captured by a cop and he was controlled from going to the parliamentary meeting. He was not introduced before the judge in time and he had a lawful right to go to the gathering. His fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution was additionally disregarded. The Supreme Court considered that the respondents were liable for violating the applicant’s rights and granted Rs.50000 as remuneration to the candidate for the encroachment of his fundamental right.
In the case of Maretti v. William ,the plaintiff fund was deposited in the defendant’s bank and the defendant refused to honor cheque to the plaintiff despite having sufficient balance. So the court held that the defendant is liable for the loss incurred by the plaintiff. In this case, the maxim Ubi jus ibi remedium was invoked to render justice to the plaintiff stating that the legal right of the plaintiff has been violated.
In the case of Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra v. Promod Gupta & Ors, the Supreme Court held that the maxim ‘Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium’ is an important and basic principle of theory or philosophy of law and the courts must protect the rights of the people and render justice if those rights are violated.
In the case of Leo Feist v. Young ,The Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States of America observed that “It is an elementary maxim of equity jurisprudence that there is no wrong without a remedy.”
The law provides and makes sure that people don’t suffer from violations of their rights. It ensures proper damages and compensations are provided to them by invoking the maxim Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium. This maxim doesn’t state that there is a remedy for each off-base. Numerous political and moral rights are perceived by law and the law doesn’t give a remedy to that. The fundamental thought behind Ubi jus ibi remedium is that no off-base will be unredressed on the off chance that it very well may be cured by the court. The maxim is commonly evident as no right exists without a remedy. The maxim is acknowledged by the law of misdeeds and gives a remedy in every single case as this regulation of custom-based law in England gives a remedy to every single wrong.