Equity and Trusts Law Flashcards
One who seeks equity must do equity.
Claimant must have acted fairly in order to seek equitable assisstence.
Chappell v Times Newspapers [1975] 3 WLR 606
Chappell v Times Newspapers [1975] 3 WLR 606
- Injunction not awarded to employees who wished to stop their employer dismissing them due to their failure to agree not to go on strike in the future
- the claimant must show that he has performed, tendered performance or is willing to perform any obligations under contract
One who seeks equity must do so with clean hands. (Doctrine of inequality)
Claimant cannot seek equitable relief where she has not acted conscionably herself.
Overton v Banister [1844] 3 Hare 503
Tinsley v Milligan [1993] 3 WLR 126
Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42
Overton v Banister [1844] 3 Hare 503
- Beneficiary of a trust falsely claimed to be older to claim the trust fund
- Failed in action against the trustees to pay back the assets of the trust she had already received as a result of the previous misrepresentation of her age
Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42
- Supreme Court concluded that claimants who satisfy the requirements of a claim for unjust enrichment should not be debarred from enforcing that claim on the ground that the failed consideration was unlawful.
- A claimant can recover sums paid under an illegal arrangement, so long as restitution is possible, as it simply returns the parties to the position they would have been in had no such illegal arrangement been made, whilst preventing the defendant being unjustly enriched.
Equity is equality.
Typically where two parties have equal claims to property then in order to acheive justice equity will order an equal division.
This maxim can be rebutted via other intentions or presumptions resulting from trust.
Jones v Maynard [1951] Ch 572
Bower’s Trust [1942] Ch 197
Jones v Maynard [1951] Ch 572
- Husband and wife held a joint account
- Failing any agreemant to the contrary they were awarded equal shares
Bower’s Trust [1942] Ch 197
- Agreement aportioning shares of a trust
- No agreement as to how the surpluss should be shared
- Failing direction, the court held that it should be shared equally
Equity looks on that as done that as done, that ought to have been done.
A contract to perform an act is treated in equity as if the act has been performed.
Walsh v Lonsdale [1882] 21 Ch D 9
Walsh v Lonsdale [1882] 21 Ch D 9
- Parties agreed on a 7 year lease
- Lease void as terms not in a deed
- Landlord tried to impose terms
- Court held that since the parties had agreed to terms, they would be imposed as if a deed had been executed
Delays defeat equity: laches and acquiescence
Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit = the law supports the walking, not the sleeping
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.
Smith v Clay [1767] Amb 654
Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86
Smith v Clay [1767] Amb 654
Lord Camden - “A court of equity has always refused it’s aid to stale demands where a party has slept upon his rights and acquiesced for a great length of time.”
Leaf v International Galleries [1950] 2 KB 86
- Maxim is dependent on the circumstances and whether or not the delay is unconscionable.
Equity acts in personam.
Equitable remedies are usually addressed against a specific individual.
Will operate against the individual irrespective of jurisdiction of England and Wales. (Difficulty to enforce of course though)
Equity follows the law.
Equitable rules will override the common law. However, equity is not unprincipled and will generally follow the law, unless there is good reason to deviate.
Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53
