Additional cases on selected Maxims of Equity

1. He who seeks equity must do equity

Chappel v Times Newspapers Ltd (1975) 1 WLR 482
Wong Chun Wah v Kok Kam Chee [2008] 3 MLJ 176

2. He who seeks equity must come with clean hands

Leo Leslie Armstrong v Jawatankuasa Kerja Tanah Wilayah Persekutuan,
KL [2014] 1 LNS 748
Sarjan Singh v Sadara Ali [1960 1 MLJ 52
Eastern Properties Sdn Bhd v Hampstead Corporation Sdn Bhd [2007] 6 CLJ
538
Timber Master Complex (Sabah) Sdn Bhd v Top Origin Sdn Bhd (2002] 1
MLJ 33

Clean hands
Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 ( see the later decision by Supreme
court overriding this case )
Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42,9
Multitech Intelligent Homes v Homes Sdn Bhd {2010} MLJU 1845
Adrik bin Mohd Ramli v Woo Swee Mee [2010] 9 MLJ 717
Paruvathy v Krishnan Doraisamy [1983} 2 MLJ 121

3. Where equities are equal the law shall prevail

Quah Hong Lian Neo v Seow Teong Teck & Ors [1936] MLJ 203

4. Equity aids the vigilant and not the tardy

Tengku Ismail Tengku Sulaiman v Sin Cheng Soon {2006} 3 CLJ 556.
M. Ratnaval v S Lourenardin [1988} 2 MLJ 371

5. Equality is Equity
Malayan Credit Ltd v Javk Chia MPH Ltd [1986] AC 549
Chung Kiaw Bank Bhd v Gvt of Sabah (1993] MLJU 136
Chee Kok Choon v Sern Kuang Eng [2005] 4 NLJ 461 cf. Chua Kum Fatt v
Lim Lay Choo (1993 3 SLR 833
Wong Kim Foong v Teau Ah Kau [1998] 1 MLJ 359
Shudesh Kumar v Kamlesh [2005] 5 MLJ 82

6. Equity looks to the itent rather than the form

Yeoh Poh Hong v Ng Cheung On [2010] MLJU 1077
Quah Eng Hock v Ang Hooi Kiam [2005] 5 CLJ 126
Teoh Heng Seng [2001] 1 CLJ 598

7. Equity looks as done that which ought to be done

Margret Chua v Ho Swee Kiew [1961] 1 MLJ 173
Sinar Wong v Ng Kee Seng [2005] 2 MLJ 42