TRUST AND EQUITY

MAXIMS
 1. Equity will not suffer a
wrong to be without a remedy
• The idea expressed in this maxim is that no wrong should be allowed to go
unaddressed if it is capable of being remedied at the court of justice, and this really
underlines the whole jurisdiction of equity.
• The maxim recognizes that not all injustices can be sufficiently rectified by the
application of common law rules. There are instances where someone may be
harmed or injured, but relief may not be possible through the common law's
accessible legal remedies. In certain situations, equity enables the court to
intervene and award remedies in accordance with standards of justice, fairness, and
conscience.
• "Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium" is the Latin phrase for this maxim, meaning "where there is
a right, there is a remedy". According to the maxim, when the common law grants a
right, it also provides a remedy for when that right is violated. Remember that this
rule only applies in cases where the court has jurisdiction over both the right and
the remedy.
 2.Equity follows the law
• This maxim, also expressed as Aequitas sequitur legem, means more fully that
"equity will not allow a remedy that is contrary to law."
• The Court of Chancery never claimed to override the courts of common law.
• Story states "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.“
• Cardozo wrote in his dissent in Graf v. Hope Building Corporation, (1930), "Equity
works as a supplement for law and does not supersede the prevailing law”
• Wherever the law can be followed, it must be followed. In the cases where the law
does not apply specifically, this maxim suffers limitation. But in modern-day England
and Wales, the law follows equity. Section 49(1) of the Senior Courts Act,1981
clearly specifies that in case there is a conflict between the rule of law and equity,
equity shall prevail.
3. He who seeks equity must do
equity
• This maxim incorporates one of the fundamental principles of equity that the one,
who seeks the assistance of the courts of equity in compelling the opponent to
perform his duty, must himself be willing/ready to perform his part of the duty in
respect of that opponent.
• The right is not like privilege of a person, it corresponds with duty from the other.
Rights and duties are reciprocal, and the right of one person may be the duty of the
other and vice versa.
• In this context equitable principles states that if a person wants the other to perform
his duty for the completion of his right, he must in return be ready and willing to
perform duty which he owes to that other. And the court of equity will not give him
relief until he is ready and willing to perform his part of the obligation
• The principle contained in the maxim relates to the performance of the outstanding
obligation by the plaintiff, before the court could pass a decree against the
defendant
 4. He who comes to equity must come
with clean hands
• Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine, unclean hands doctrine, or dirty hands
doctrine,[1] is an equitable defence in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not
entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in
bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands".
• The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith.
• The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with
clean hands".
• A defendant's unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other
equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable affirmative defences.
• In other words, 'unclean hands' can be used offensively by the plaintiff as well as defensively by
the defendant.
• The maxim prevents those who have acted improperly in some way relating to the matter at
hand from seeking a remedy or relief.
• The maxim protects the integrity of a court.
 5. Delay defects equity
• "Delay defeats equity" suggests that when action or justice is delayed, it can lead to unfairness or
the loss of what is right or just. In legal contexts, it emphasizes the importance of timely resolution
and action to ensure that justice is served without undue delay, preventing the erosion of fairness.
• It basically bars a claimant from receiving relief where the claimant’s delay in pursuing the claim has
operated to the prejudice.
• The maxim means that a party who delays in enforcing rights will not be able to seek equitable relief.
• A Latin term in this regard is “Vigilantbus, non dormentibus, jura subvenient.” which means “Equity
aids the vigilant and not the indolent”. So, if one sleeps on his rights, his rights will slip away from
him. Legal claims are barred by statutes of limitation and equitable claims may be barred not only by
limitation law but also by unreasonable delay, called laches.
• DOCTRINE OF LACHES:
• Delay which is sufficient to prevent a party from exercising its rights and obtaining relief from court
of law is called laches. Laches is more than mere delay, and instead implies neglect to do what ought
to have been done. Thus, the maxim means that a party who delays in enforcing rights will not be
able to seek equitable relief.
6. Equality is equity
 Where the equities are equal
the first in time shall prevail

• Equal equities
• First in time
• Priority principle
• Application in Property and Contract Law
 Where there are equal
equities law shall prevail
• Equality of parties.
• Objective decision making.
• Preventing arbitrary decisions.

o CASE LAW
Snell v Snell
 Equity Acts in Personam

• It is the nature of equitable remedies that they

generally operate against the person of the
defendant.

• Judgement is made against the individual.

 Equity Acts in Personam

o Limitations

• Defendant has to be within the jurisdiction of the

court.
• The order must not violate the legal rules of
another country.
• The order must be capable of being executed
without intervention of a foreign court.
 Equity Acts in Personam

o CASE LAW

Penn v Lord Baltimore

Equity looks upon that as done
which ought to have been done

• Forward looking principle

• Focus on intent and obligation.
• Just and fair outcome.
• Emphasis on fairness.
• Application in contractual and fiduciary
relationships.
Equity looks upon that as done
which ought to have been done
o LIMITATIONS

• Subjectivity in Determining What "Ought to Have

Been Done
• Dependence on Judicial Discretion
 Equity looks to the intent
rather to the form
• Intent over form
• Substance prevail
• The maxim is often applied in contexts such as
contracts, where the parties' intentions may be
more crucial than the precise wording or
formalities.
o CASE LAW
Street V Mountford
Equity imputes an intention to
fulfill an obligation
• Imputation of Intention
• Fulfillment of obligation
• Often applied in cases where parties may not have
clearly expressed their intentions, but equity intervenes
to infer an intention to fulfill obligations.
• Resolution of Ambiguity
o CASE LAW
Sowden V Sowden
CONCLUSION