Maxim: Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy

 

Maxim: Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy

 

The idea of the Maxim is expressed in the Latin Maxim, “ubi jus ibi remedium” 

 

Meaning “No wrong should go unredressed if it is capable of being remedied by Courts of Justice.”

 

General Meaning

 

Equity will not allow the technical defects of law to prevent worthy plaintiffs from obtaining redress.

 

Application of the Maxim

ü  The Enforcement of Trusts

ü  The Auxiliary Jurisdiction

ü  Appointment of Receivers

 

Limitations of the Maxim

 

a)      The equity courts could not help where there was breach of a moral right only.  Thus, only the breaches of legal rights and equitable rights were capable of being redressed.

b)      The equity courts afforded no relief, where the right and its remedy both were within the jurisdiction of the common law courts.

c)      The equity courts afforded no relief, where due to his own negligence a party either destroyed or allowed to be destroyed, the evidence in his own favor or waived his right to an equitable remedy.

 

 Recognition of the Maxim in Bangladesh

 

a)      All the rights and principles incorporated in The Trust Act, 1882 are based on this Maxim.

b)      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, section 9 “Courts to try all civil suits unless barred”

c)      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, section 151, “Saving of inherent powers of court”

d)      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XL:  Schedule I

ü  Appointment of receivers

ü  Remuneration

ü  Duties

ü  Enforcement of receiver’s duties

e)      The Specific Relief Act, 1887 provides for the equitable remedies like specific performance of contracts, injunctions, declaratory suits, etc.

 

Writ provisions in the constitution and public interest litigation devices have now extended the scope and effective working of this Maxim.

Leading Case

 

Ashby vs White (1703)

 

Plaintiff

Matthew Ashby, a Cobbler.

 

Defendant

William White, a police constable.

 

Place

Year 1703, Alsbury, Buckinghamshire, England.

 

Summary

 

ü  White, the returning officer responsible for overseeing the parliamentary election in Alsbury refused to allow Ashby, a qualified Voter from Alsbury to cast vote.

 

ü  White wrongfully and maliciously refused to allow Ashby to cast his vote, even though Ashby met all legal qualifications.

 

ü  Ashby subsequently brought a lawsuit against white, seeking damages for the wrong full denial of his voting rights.

 

ü  However, the candidate for whom Ashby wanted to vote was elected.

 

ü  Lord holt (House of Lords) established a crucial legal principle stating that, even when no financial harm is suffered, the law assumes damage has occurred.  it is enough to prove that illegal right has been violated to seek redress.

 

Judgement

The Court ruled in favor of Ashby and entitled to compensation.