Topic 2 (Maxims): Case Law - unfinished Flashcards
Corin v Patton (1990)
Definition of maxims
Chief Justice Mason defined the maxims of equity as follows:
“a summary statement of a broad theme which underlies equitable concepts and principles.”
Jones v Kernott [2012] 1 ac 776
Maxim 1: Equity Follows the Law
Concerned the determination of what type of interest an unmarried, cohabiting couple had in a property that was bought by them in joint names and for which both were equally responsible for mortgage repayments and they had not formally agreed what interests each had in the property.
BOTH RESPONSIBLE FOR MORTGAGE, joint owners, both contribute equally, factually they are both considered joint-tenants in common law.
Equitable interest as joint tenants.
Re Bostock’s Settlement [1921] 2 Ch 469
Maxim 1: Equity Follows the Law
Under common law - for property left to others, certain rule must be used - certainty of language.
Common law required specific language when transferring estate - equity follows the law so it requires the same principle.
Where an executed trust is created, the requisite legal words are to be used and a general intent to confer an interest in fee simple will not suffice.
McGillycuddy v Joy and Joy [1959] IR 189
Maxim 1: Equity Follows the Law… but not slavishly
Agreement made by McGillycuddy and David/William Joy to purchase “Breen’s Farm”;
Verbal agreement committed to a letter signed by McGillycuddy and David Joy;
Agreed 1/3 and 2/3 split between the parties, with McGillycuddy getting part of farm known as “The Inches” and a right to fish on the farm;
Agreed property would be purchased by David Joy alone;
McGillycuddy paid his portion of price to relevant solicitors, David Joy sought to repudiate/reject the contract between the Joys and McGillycuddy;
Held that even though the letter did not satisfy the statute of frauds, the lands had been purchased on trust, and by refusing to honor the agreement the Defendants had committed a fraud.
Dealings must be done in writing - common law, despite it clearly being unfair - equity.
Following statute of frauds strictly, cannot enforce oral dealings, too rigid application of law.
Plaintiff was awarded title of his portion of the law - EQUITY WAS NOT FOLLOWING THE LAW HERE
Not modifying, just disapplying this statute of frauds when it is unfair.
Ewing v Orr Ewing (No. 1) (1883) 9 App Cas 34;
Maxim 3: Equity acts in personam (against a person)
Person made a will, lots of land in Scotland, some in England.
oInfant legatee (person set to inherit from a will) brought an action in England to administer the estate;
oThe infant resided in England at the time proceedings were initiated, three of the appellant trustees resided in England, and the other parties were lawfully joined to the proceedings without issue;
No jurisdiction as the land is in Scotland
Equitable decision - there was jurisdiction as equity acts in personam.
Duty that the court is concerned with is trustees, and applicant, the land is not present in court - this does not matter, the focus is whether the law is fair to people.
Lett v Lett [1906] 1 IR 618
Maxim 3: Equity acts in personam (against a person)
Case concerned an injunction granted in an Irish court to restrain proceedings in an Argentinian Court relating to divorce and maintenance
All property in Argentina, contract formed in Argentina.
Equitable decision - proceedings were issued in ireland, stopped proceedings in Argentina
Sir Samuel Walker “.. equity against her is founded not upon the tribunal to which she has resorted, but upon the personal contract binding her conscience.”
Webb v Webb [1994] QB 696
Maxim 3: Equity acts in personam (against a person)
Father applied for a declaration that a property he had bought and conveyed to his son was held on trust by his son for him;
Son argued that Article 16(1) of the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgements in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 applied (in proceedings that concern rights in rem, the Courts of of the Contracting State in which the property is situate shall have exclusive jurisdiction);
Held that an action for a declaration did not constitute an action in rem, but instead was an action in personam;
Tried to argue it was solely a property case - subject of the agreement is property but the issue trying to resolve is the interpersonal agreement, property is secondary.
Allcard v Skinner [1887] 36 Ch D 145
Maxim 7 – Delay Defeats Equity
famous case of undue influence;
Young woman joins the “Sisters of the Poor”;
Tried to reclaim money and stocks that she had given up to the clergy without legal advice after she left the sisterhood on the basis of undue influence (Undue influence occurs when an individual is able to persuade another’s decisions due to the relationship between the two parties) she was not given correct legal advice;
Court held that the gifts of money and stock were voidable due to undue influence, however she was not granted such relief due to laches;
Decision makes reference to both laches and acquiescence, demonstrates the similarities between the two concepts;
Five years later - she waited to initiate proceedings and enforce her rights - DELAY
She chose not to enforce her right immediately even though she was aware of her rights - acquiescence.
Long passage of time and not acting - laches
This case shows the merge of the two concepts
McGrath v Stewart [2008] IEHC 348
Maxim 7 – Delay Defeats Equity
Plaintiff seeking specific performance (equitable relief) of an agreement to purchase various properties with vacant possession;
Plaintiff had entered the contract to purchase the properties in 1998 and did not institute proceedings until 2004 (six year delay);
Defendant claims laches, Plaintiff alleges he was intimidated into not enforcing his rights;
Aside - Issue of coming to equity with clean hands arose – allegation by defendant that plaintiff was a bad faith actor in that he did not inspect the property prior to purchase, Judge determined a prudent purchaser would inspect the property, however not inspecting did not involve any “moral turpitude”;
On the issue of laches, Judge Murphy saw it as being a bar to relief in this instance;
Value of the property changes - financial burden & passage of time
Appeal of McGrath v Stewart to the Supreme Court;
Addressed issue of whether or not damages in lieu of specific performance could be given where laches found;
Could not give damages.
Nelson v Rye [1996] 1 WLR 1378
Maxim 7 – Delay Defeats Equity
Highlights the the blurring of the lines between laches and acquiescence;
Plaintiff found to be guilty of laches/acquiescence in relation to the period prior to 1985 when an account of money was sought for the period of 1980 to 1990 ;
Acquiescence and delay were noted by Judge Laddie as not to be seen as “precisely defined hurdles” to be overcome to make out a defense.
Victor & Leavy v Galhoy Inns Ltd [2010] IEHC 459
Maxim 7 – Delay Defeats Equity
Plaintiff sought declaration that defendant not entitled to use an alleged right of way over their property;
Judge satisfied encroachment of the right of way took place;
Defendant contended that the plaintiff knew of the variations and changes that occurred in relation to the right of way, and thus by delaying they acquiesced to these developments;
Did the plaintiff acquiesce? No
“Before, the law will deprive a person of his prima facie entitlements due to acquiescence, the inaction of passivity of that person must amount to something approaching dishonesty or unconscionableness on their part. Having regard to the plaintiffs’ limited knowledge or appreciation of what was occurring on their premises they should not be deprived of their remedy.”
Defendant argued the plaintiff knew encroachment was happening and did nothing about it
But there was no unconscionable act.
Parkin v Thorold [1852] 16 Beav 59
Maxim 8 - Equity Looks to the Intent Rather than the Form
Lord Romilly MR summarized the application of this maxim as follows;
“Courts of Equity make a distinction in all cases between that which is matter of substance and that which is matter of form; and if it find that by insisting on the form, the substance will be defeated, it holds it to be inequitable to allow a person to insist on such form, and thereby defeat the substance.”
Equity favours the substance of an agreement rather than the form, you cannot be cheated out of the substance of agreement by someone being persnickety about the form.
Grangeside Properties Ltd. v Collingswoods Securities Limited and Other [1964] 1 W.L.R. 139
Maxim 8 - Equity Looks to the Intent Rather than the Form
Land was used as security for a loan;
Assignment of the land as security did not use the phrase “by way of mortgage”;
At initial hearing, Court determined the assignment had no effect as it was not a genuine document;
On appeal, the defendant/respondent argued that even if the document was genuine, it could have no effect as it did not meet the proper criteria for being a mortgage under the Law of Property Act 1925;
On appeal, it was held that although proper expression was not used, the security was a mortgage under the Law of Property Act, 1925;
Should be no relief as it does not meet the criteria to have effect under the Property Act
Form of the agreement is not correct - clear intention of both parties to be a mortgage.
Comiskey and Others v Bowring-Hanbury and Another [1905] A.C. 84
