Editing Maxims of equity (section)

===Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy===
When seeking an equitable relief, the one that has been wronged has the stronger hand. The stronger hand is the one that has the capacity to ask for a [[legal remedy]] (judicial relief). In equity, this form of remedy is usually one of [[specific performance]] or an [[injunction]] (injunctive relief). These are superior remedies to those administered at common law such as [[damages]]. The [[Latin]] [[legal maxim]] is ''ubi jus ibi remedium'' ("where there is a right there must be a remedy").<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803110448446|title=Ubi jus ibi remedium - Oxford Reference|website=www.oxfordreference.com|doi=|language=en|access-date=2020-02-05}}</ref>

The maxim is necessarily subordinate to positive principles and cannot be applied either to subvert established rules of law or to give the courts a [[jurisdiction]] hitherto unknown, and it is only in a general not in a literal sense that the maxim has force.

[[Case law]] dealing with the principle of this maxim at law include ''[[Ashby v White]]'' ([[Court of King's Bench (England)|K.B.]] 1703)<ref>''[[Ashby v White]]'' (1703) 92 ER 126</ref> and ''[[Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents]]'' (U.S. 1971).<ref>''[[Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents]]'', {{ussc|403|388|1971}}</ref> The application of this principle at law was important to the decision of ''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'',<ref>''[[Marbury v. Madison]]'', {{ussc|5|137|1803|Cranch|1}}</ref> wherein it was invoked to establish that [[William Marbury|Marbury]] had a cause of action to his commission in the first place in order for [[John Marshall|Chief Justice Marshall]] to make his more wide-ranging decision. The United States' ''Bivens'' doctrine, however, has been sharply limited over time, such as in ''[[Egbert v. Boule]]'' (U.S. 2022), in favor of requiring [[cause of action|causes of action]] to be explicitly authorized by statute.