Maxims of Equity Flashcards
The Maxims of Equity
What general comment does McGhee (2000) make?
McGhee (2000): Equity is not a complete system due to its haphazard origin but there are certain general principles upon which the Court of Chancery exercised its jurisdiction. They are not positive laws to be applied literally and relentlessly, but principles that can be discerned in the many rules established
The Maxims of Equity
- Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy
Where there is a right there is a remedy: no wrong should go unredressed if it is capable of being remedied by the courts.
The Maxims of Equity - Equity follows the law, but will not allow legislation to be used as an instrument of fraud
General rule?
Equity operates by mitigating the harshness of the common law. It does not deny the existence or validity of common law rules and will not lightly overrule legal requirements.
For example, the Statute of Frauds (Ireland) 1695 does not require the declaration of an inter vivos express trust to be in writing, but there must be some written evidence to prove the declaration and its essential terms. If not, the trustee could try deny the existence of the trust + take for himself
The Maxims of Equity - Equity follows the law, but will not allow legislation to be used as an instrument of fraud
Rochefoucald v Boustead [1897]:
P owned a mortgaged house (bank). Mortgagee sold it to D. D orally agreed to hold it on trust for P pending repayment. D sold the land. Held the land was conveyed to D as a trustee for P and accordingly P was entitled to an order for an account.
McGillycuddy v Joy [1959]: the principle was applied in Ireland
The Maxims of Equity - He who seeks equity must do equity
General rule?
A claimant seeking equitable relief must act in an honest and honourable manner and equitably.
This is because an equitable relief is a discretionary remedy
The Maxims of Equity - He who seeks equity must do equity
Cheese v Thomas [1994]
- Old man transferred to nephew his life savings (half the purchase price of a house) for right to live in house he’d just sold his nephew.
- Turns out he did this under the undue influence of the nephew.
- As property value had dropped, court held each should bear the loss equally on the basis of he who seeks equity must do equity.
The Maxims of Equity - He who comes to equity must come with clean hands
General rule?
A person who is seeking a remedy must not have engaged in dishonest conduct.
The dishonesty or misrepresentation must relate to the transaction, not just generally.
The Maxims of Equity - He who comes to equity must come with clean hands
Moody v Cox [1917]:
Equity will not apply the principles about clean hands unless the depravity, the dirt in question on the hand, has an immediate and necessary relation to the equity sued for.
The Maxims of Equity - He who comes to equity must come with clean hands
Argyll v Argyll [1967]:
P’s adultery didn’t prevent her getting an injunction restraining her former husband to breach confidences. The cleanliness must be judged in relation to the relief sought
The Maxims of Equity - Delay defeats equity
Allcard v Skinner [1887
Nun made a will in favour of the Mother Superior and also inter vivos transfers of property to her. When she left the convent, she revoked the will. She waited 6 years to make a claim re the inter vivos property transfers. This delay proved fatal to her claim.
The Maxims of Equity - Equality is equity
Rule?
To equally divide property if more than one person is entitled
The Maxims of Equity - Equity looks to intent rather than form
General rule?
Equity tends to look at the substance of the matter and not the strict form where it’s irrelevant to the substantive justice of the transaction.
For example, it is not necessary to use the word ‘trust’ or any other particular words in order to prove intention to create an express trust as equity looks at the intent rather than the form.
The Maxims of Equity - Equity looks to intent rather than form
Thexton v Thexton [2001]:
Thexton v Thexton [2001]:
The Maxims of Equity - Equity looks on that as done which ought to have been done
General rule?
If an agreement for a lease is sufficiently certain, it may be specifically enforced in equity as the equivalent of a lease. Sometimes an agreement for a lease is as good as a lease.
The Maxims of Equity - Equity looks on that as done which ought to have been done
Walsh v Lonsdale [1882]
- D agreed to grant P a lease of a mill for 7 years, the rent to be paid quarterly in arrears w a years rent payable in advance if demanded. Deed not executed but P moved in + paid rent in arrears
- Then D demanded a year’s rent in advance. P refused + said the agreement wasn’t executed.
- Held an agreement for a lease was as good as a lease
