1 Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy.

Where there is a right there is a remedy. This idea is expressed in the Latin Maxim ubi jus ibi
remedium (where there is a right, there must be a remedy). It means that no wrong should go un
redressed if it is capable of being remedied by courts. This maxim indicates the width of the scope and
the basis on which the structure of equity rests. This maxim imports that where the common law
confers a right; it should also give a remedy or right of action for interference with or infringement of
that right.
When seeking an equitable relief, the one that has been wronged has the stronger hand and has the
capacity to ask for a legal remedy (judicial relief).
In Ashby v. White, wherein a qualified voter was not allowed to vote and who therefore sued the
returning officer, it was held that if the law gives a man a right, he must have a means to maintain it,
and a remedy, if he is injured in the enjoyment of it.

Example 2 , equity in application to law of trust. in law of Trusts this maxim,

equitable remedy enabled the beneficiary through the procedures of the trust, to
enforce obligations where no remedy at common law existed. That is the
beneficiary had no right at common law to have the terms of the trust enforced
but our legal system never the less requires the trustee to carry out those terms
to prevent him or her to commit what would be in effect wrong against that
beneficiary.

Remedies available under this maxim.

Specific performance and injunctions constitute one of the chief ways in which
equity supplements the law by granting auxiliary or additional remedies where
the common law remedies where inadequate.
Illustration; for instance, the general remedy at Common Law for breach of contract is damages, but
those cases where damages could not be a sufficiency remedy, equity will grant specific performance.
Similarly, where damages will not be a sufficient remedy for infringement of a right, whether arising
out or contract or not, equity will grant an injunction;
However, equity will not interfere where wrong is satisfactorily redressed at common law.
An example can be seen in the case of; equitable remedy of restitution where a chattel was
wrongfully retained, at common law, the defendant could keep the chattel and pay its value in
damages; but if the thing retained were of unique nature or particular value to the owner, equity would
therefore order the chattel itself to be returned.
3. Equity follows the law

The court of Chancery never claimed to override the courts of common law i.e. equitable rights cannot
over ride legal rights... where a rule, either of the common or the statute law is direct, and governs the
case with all its circumstances, or the particular point, a court of equity is as much bound by it as a
court of law, and can as little justify a departure from it.
1. According to Edmund Henry Turner Snell, It is only when there is some important
circumstance disregarded by the common law rules that equity interferes.
2. Cardozo J. wrote in his dissent in Graf v. Hope Building Corporation, 254 N.Y 1 at 9 (1930),
"Equity works as a supplement for law and does not supersede the prevailing law."
3. Lord Maitland says, We ought not to think of common law and equity as of two rival systems.
Equity had come not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. Every jot and every title of law was to be
obeyed, but when all this had been done yet something might be needful, something that equity
would require." The goal of law and equity was the same but due to historical reason they chose a
different path. Equity respected every word of law and every right at law but where the law wa s
defective, in those cases, equity provides equitable right and remedies.

The establishment this maxim of; equitable remedy follows the common law was observed in the case
of;
Solle Vs Butcher .The principle is that only parties to a contract will be bound by that contract under
the law of contract, it is always observed by a doctrine of equity; for example special performance
cant be granted where damages will provide adequate remedy, this is because equity follows the law
and is designed to supplement the grant of damages but not to override them like in contracts for sale
or lease of land or where chattels sold have a special beauty or interest specific performance will be
decreed.
However; NB. if the common law rules are ancient or too rigid then equity wont follow them since
it wont promote fairness to the litigants.