Law Essay: Analysis of Equity Maxim 'Equity Will Not Suffer a Wrong'

This essay delves into the equity maxim 'Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy,' examining its historical context, development, and application within the legal system. It explores the maxim's origins in common law and its role in providing equitable remedies where legal remedies are insufficient. The essay discusses the maxim's limitations, including conditions for its application and situations where it does not apply, such as moral infringements or negligence. Case laws like Hussey v Palmer and Ashby v. White are analyzed to illustrate the practical application of the maxim, highlighting the courts' role in ensuring that legal rights are protected and wrongs are redressed. The essay concludes by emphasizing the importance of equity in providing justice and the central role of the maxim in the broader context of legal principles, underscoring its importance in ensuring that no wrong goes unaddressed if the court has the authority to provide redress.

Running Head: Law 1
Law

Law 2
Introduction:
Law related to equity is based on the precedent, and the rules are developed from previous
situations which they have deal with. However, there are number of people who disagree with
the changing laws and law of equity and the rules that have been accepted by previous judges
who result in precedent and now known as maxims. These maxims are used by Courts as
guidelines.
This essay states the equity maxim “Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy” with
different case laws. Subsequently, this maxim is concluded with brief conclusion.
Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy:
Maxims are considered as body of law which is developed in way of equity and it also help the
way through which equity operates. It must be noted that these maxims are not compulsory in
nature and it applies on the discretion of Court.
Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy is the maxim which is developed by
common law, and it had no legal remedies but only monetary damages. Maxims must be treated
as caution in regards to present law, and it is mainly used by beneficiaries of a trust whose rights
were recognized as common law. Under this maxim, equitable remedies such as injunctions and
specific performance are given1.
In case Hussey v Palmer 1972, 2Lord Denning attempts to alter this maxim which becomes
unsuccessful.
While seeking equitable relief, person who has been wronged has the stronger hand, and if
person has stronger hand than he is the one who has capacity to ask for legal remedy hat is
judicial relief. In equity the main form of remedy is usually given is specific performance and
injunction. These are some superior remedies who administered at common law such as
damages. For this Latin legal maxim is ubi jus ibi remediam. Case law which deals with this
maxim is Ashby v. White 13 End P. 2533. In this case, court stated when law clothes a man with
a right then it also provides different way through which person gets that right and remedies, and
co-exist and mere attribution related to legal rights without remedies are meaningless.
It must be noted that, this maxim ubi Jus ibi remedium allowed the chancellor to intervene in the
administration of the justice for the purpose of giving relief by common law and also help the
litigant by offering facilities in lieu of evidence and the procedure which usually not adopted by
Court.
Conditions related to Maxim:
Following are some conditions which are related to maxim:
1 Law Teacher. The Law Of Equity, < https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/property-trusts/the-law-of-
equity.php>, Accessed on 5th October 2017.
2 Hussey v Palmer 1972
3 Ashby v. White 13 End P. 253.

Law 3
 If any party lost his right or waived his right because of his own mistake then this maxim
is not applicable.
 This maxim will not apply if there is any moral infringement and becomes incapable of
enforcement.
Limitation related to Maxim:
Following are some limitations which are related to this Maxim:
 Both right and remedy must be I the jurisdiction of common law.
 Court does not have authorization to put question mark on acts of state.
Non-Application of Maxim:
In following cases this maxim will not applied:
 This maxim is not applied when there is any breach related to moral right because equity
only helps when legal right of the person is breached and not moral right.
 When jurisdiction of common law Courts are there then this Maxim is not applied.
 This maxim is not applied when there is negligence on part of plaintiff.
After considering above facts, it is clear that Equity Courts are the courts of natural justice, and
whenever any right is infringed then remedy is available for that infringement. In other words,
there is always a remedy for wrong. Only those rights which were recognized by the law will be
enforced by the Court. This concept of law is recognized in Ubi Jus ibi Remedium which is
considered as whole crux of jurisdiction of equity. It expressed that every right of person will be
enforced and wrong act is redressed by equity. However, it must be noted that if such right is
recognized by common law then no relief is granted by equity4.
Conclusion:
After concluded, it is clear that basic idea behind this maxim is no wrong should be underdressed
if Court has authorization to redress by Court. When common law provides any right then it also
provides remedy for enforcing that right but there is some limitation also it does not provide
remedies for all wrongs.
4 You are law. 20 Maxims of Equity – The Heart of Winning, < https://www.youarelaw.org/20-maxims-of-equity-
the-heart-of-winning/>, Accessed on 3rd October 2017.

Law 4
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Website
Law Teacher. The Law Of Equity, < https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/property-
trusts/the-law-of-equity.php>, Accessed on 5th October 2017.
You are law. 20 Maxims of Equity – The Heart of Winning, < https://www.youarelaw.org/20-
maxims-of-equity-the-heart-of-winning/>, Accessed on 3rd October 2017.
Case Law
Hussey v Palmer 1972
Ashby v. White 13 End P. 253.