“Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium”, comes in a play. It is a Latin maxim, it means that “Wherever there is a right, there is a remedy.” We can simply put that remedies are the life of rights.

The main two ingredients of the doctrine are ‘jus’ and ‘remedium’. Where ‘jus’ means legal authority to do or to demand something from and ‘remedium’ means right of action. This right to a remedy, includes more than the plain meaning of term ‘remedy’ in English law, as it includes a right of action.

The principle says that wherever there is breach of anyone’s right, the law gives him/her the remedy to protect it or to recover the damages for any loss.

In a landmark case,  Ashby v. White, 1 SM LC 253 Holt C.J. observed that there should be no wrong without remedy. Wherever the common law gives right, there is always a remedy for it’s enforcement. It was held that, “ 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 are reciprocal”.

Essentials of Ubi jus ibi remedium

• The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium can 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 maxim damnum sine injuria will be used which means damage without any legal injury.

Limitations of ubi jus ibi remedium

• The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium does not apply to moral and political wrong which are not actionable.
• This maxim is not applied to those cases in which proper remedy is given in case of breach of right under common law.
• If there is no legal damage which has been caused to any person then this maxim will not be applicable.
• No remedies are available in case of breach of marriage vows or personal commitment as these all are the promises made without consideration and are based on trust.
• This maxim is also not applicable in case of public nuisance unless and until a plaintiff shows that he suffered more injury than other members or peoples of the society.
• This maxim is not applicable where the plaintiff is negligent or there is negligence on the part of the plaintiff.