1: Introduction
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.{1}
2: Development Of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium
The law of tort is said to be the development of the maximubi jus ibi remedium. The wordjusmeans legal authority to do something .the wordremedium means that the person has the right of action in the court of law. The literal meaning of the maxim is that where there is right there is remedy.The 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 sought or to be obtained should be legal. There are many moral and political wrong but are out actionable or it does not give many sufficient reasons to take legal actions as they are not recognised by law. The maxim does not mean that there is a legal remedy for every wrong committed.This doesnt mean that for every wrong there is a remedy. 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.{2}
3:Essentials of Ubi jus ibi remedium
The maximubi jus ibi remediumcan 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 maximdamnum sine injuria will be used which means damage without any legal injury.{3}
4: Injuria sine damno
Violation of legal right without any causing any damage or loss to the plaintiff is calledInjuria sine damno
These are of two kinds of tort
Actionable per se
Even if there is no proof of the damage caused, its actionable. E.g. If A trespasses Bs land, here even though theres no damage caused, the action of trespass is itself violates the right of A
Actionable only
Its only actionable upon proof of the damage caused by an act.
In injuria sine damno, which here is 1stkind, the plaintiff need not have to prove that he has suffered some damage or loss due to the defendants act. I.e. there isinjuria. The plaintiff has to prove that his legal right is violated, if thats convinced in Court of Law then the defendant will be made liable to pay damages.{4}
5: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. {5}
6:Case laws
Donoghue v Stevenson
This case is also known as the snail in the beer bottle case. This event took place in Paisley, Scotland in 1928, where Ms. May Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer which had bought by her friend. Since, the bottle was opaque in colour from outside nothing is visible inside. Donoghue consumed most of its contents before she became aware of the snail had been there inside the bottle and she later fell ill.Donoghue then took a legal action against the manufacture of the ginger beer, Mr. David Stevenson. The house of lord held that the manufacture owed a duty of care to her, which was breached because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the products safety would lead to her to consumers. There was also a sufficiently proximate relationship between consumers and product manufacturers.
Bhim Singh V. State Of Jammu And Kashmir
In this case, there is an applicant who is the MLA of the Jammu and Kashmir parliamentary gathering. While he was on his way to the parliamentary meeting, he was inappropriately captured by a cop and he was not able to be introduced before the judge on time and he had a lawful right to go to the gathering.His fundamental right under article 21 under the Indian constitution has been violated. The Supreme Court considered that the respondent was liable for violating the applicants rights and it granted him a damage of rupees 50000 to the candidate for encroachment of his fundamental right.{6}
7: Conclusion
Equity courts are the court of justice. The person whose rights are violated has a right to stand before the court of law. This maxim does not say that there is a remedy for every wrong. There are many political and moral rights which are recognized by law and the law does not provide a remedy for that. The basic idea behind ubi jus ibi remediumis that no wrong will be unredressed if it can be remedied by the court. The maxim is generally true as no right exists without a remedy. The maxim is accepted by the law of torts and provides a remedy in each and every case as this doctrine of common law in England provides a remedy for each and every wrong.
8: Citation
1: Arya Mishra,"introduction " available at : https://blog.ipleaders.in (last visited on December 9,2023)
2: Tijil Mishra,"Development Of Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium" available at : https://www.legalserviceindia.com (last visited on December 9,2023)
3: Arya Mishra,"Essentials of Ubi jus ibi remedium" available at : https://blog.ipleaders.in (last visited on December 10,2023)
4: Arivan," Injuria sine damno" available at: https://indialawportal.co.in (last visited on December 10,2023)
5: Arivan ," Damnum sine injuria" available at : https://indialawporatal.co.in (last visited on December 11,2023)
6: Tijil Mishra,"case laws" available at : https://www.legalserviceindia.com (last visited on December 12,2023)
