Maxims of Equity

1. EQUITY WILL NOT SUFFER A WRONG TO BE

WITHOUT A REMEDY
Meaning
• Where there is a right there is a remedy.
• expressed in the Latin maxim ubi jus ibi
remedium.
• Meaning, no wrong should go un
redressed if it is capable of being
remedied by courts.
• Maxim indicates the width of the
scope and the basis of which the
structure of equity rests.
• Maxim imports that where the
common law confers a right, it gives
also a remedy or right of action for
interference with or infringement of
that right.
Application and cases
• Ashby v. White: A qualified voter was
not allowed to vote and he sued the
returning officer. Held that if the law
gives a man a right, he must have a
means to maintain it, and a remedy, if
he is injured in the enjoyment of it.
• In cases where some document was
with the defendant and it was
necessary for the plaintiff to obtain
its discovery or production, a
recourse to the Chancery Courts had
to be made for the Common Law
becoming ‘wrongs without remedies’.
Limitation
• a) If there is a breach of a moral right
only.
• b) If the right and remedy both were
within the jurisdiction of the Common Law
Courts.
• c) Where due to his own negligence a
party either destroyed or allowed to be
destroyed, the evidence in his own favour
or waived his right to an equitable remedy.
Recognition ??
i) Constitution?? A.129
ii)The Trust Act
iii) Civil Procedure Act?? entitles a civil
court to entertain all kinds of suits
unless they are prohibited.
iv) Case Law?
 2. EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW

Meaning
• The maxim indicates the discipline which the
Chancery Courts observed while
administering justice according to
conscience.
• As observed by Jekyll. M.R: ‘The discretion of
the court is governed by the rules of law and
equity, which are not to oppose, but each, in
turn, to be subservient to the other.”
Maitland said, “Thus equity came not
to destroy the law but to fulfill it, to
supplement it, to explain it.”
The goal of equity and law is the same,
but due to their nature and due to
historic accident they chose different
paths.
• Equity respected every word of law and
every right at law but where the law was
defective, in those instances, these
Common Law rights were controlled by
recognition of equitable Rights.
• Snell therefore explained this maxim in
slightly different way: “Equity follows the
law, but not slavishly, nor always.”
•  Application and cases
• At common law, where a person died
intestate who owned an estate in fee-
simple, leaving sons and daughters, the
eldest son was entitled to the whole of
the land to the exclusion of his younger
brothers and sisters. This was unfair, yet
no relief was granted by Equity Courts.
• But in this case it was held that if the son
had induced his father not to make a will
by agreeing to divide the estate with his
brothers and sisters, equity would have
interfered and compelled him to carry out
his promise, because it would have been
against conscience to allow the son to
keep the benefit of a legal estate which he
obtained by reason of his promise. This
decision was held in Stickland v. Aldridge.
Limitation
i) Where a rule of law did not specifically
and clearly apply
ii) Where even by analogy the rule of law
did not apply
Recognition ??
i) Case law?
 3. HE WHO SEEKS EQUITY MUST DO EQUITY

Meaning
• The maxim means that to obtain an
equitable relief the plaintiff must himself
be prepared to do ‘equity’, that is, a
plaintiff must recognize and submit to the
right of his adversary.
Application and cases
Maxim applies in the following doctrines-
• i) Illegal loans
• ii) Doctrine of Election
• iii) Consolidation of mortgages
• iv) Notice to redeem mortgage
• v) Wife’s equity to settlement
• vi) Equitable estoppel
• vii) Restitution of benefits on cancellation of
transaction
• viii) Set-off
•  Limitation
• i) The demand for an equitable relief
must arise from a suit that is pending.
• ii) This maxim is applicable to a party who
seeks an equitable relief.

• Recognition ??
• Case Law ??
  
4. HE WHO COMES TO EQUITY MUST COME WITH CLEAN HANDS

 Meaning
• Equity demands fairness not only from the
defendant but also from the plaintiff.
• It is therefore said that “he that hath
committed an inequity, shall not have equity.”
While applying this maxim the court believed
that the behavior of the plaintiff was not
against conscience before he came to the
court.
Application and cases
• In Highwaymen case, two robbers were
partners in their own way. Due to a
disagreement in shares one of them filed
a bill against another for accounts of the
profits of robbery. Courts of equity do
grant relief in case of partnership but
here was a case where the cause of
action arose from an illegal occupation.
So, the court refused to help them.
• The working of this maxim could be seen
while giving the relief of specific
performance, injunction, rescission or
cancellation.
Limitation
• General or total conduct of the plaintiff is
not to be considered. It will be seen
whether he was of clean hands in the
same suit he brought or not.
Brandies J. in Loughran v. Loughran said
that “Equity does not demand that its
suitors shall have led blameless lives.”
 Exception
• i) If the transaction is a against public
policy
• ii) if the party repents for his conduct
before his unjust plans are carried out. 
• Recognition ??
• Case Law??
He who seeks equity must do equity He who comes into equity must come with
clean hands

i) It is applicable when both the plaintiff and i) It is applicable when the defendant has no
the defendant have claims of equitable relief separate claim to relief and the plaintiff’s
against each other. conduct is unfair.
ii) It exposes the condition subsequent to the ii) It is a condition precedent to seeking
relief sought. equitable relief.

iii) It refers to the plaintiff’s conduct as the iii) It refers to the plaintiff’s conduct before
court thinks it ought to be, after he comes to he approaches the court.
the court.
iv) The plaintiff has to mould his behavior iv) If the plaintiff’s conduct is unfair, it would
according to the impositions by the court. not entitle him to the relief sought.

v) The plaintiff has an option or a choice v) The conduct of the plaintiff snatched his
before him either to submit to the conditions choice from him. His equitable right
put by the court, or to get out of the court. therefore neither be recognized nor
enforced.
vi) This maxim looks to the future. vi) This maxim looks at the past.
  5. DELAY DEFEATS EQUITIES

Meaning
A Latin term in this regard is “Vigilantibus, 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.
Application and cases
• To cases which are governed by statutes
of limitation either expressly or by
analogy the maxim will not apply. Such
cases fall into three categories-
i) Those equitable claims to which the
statute applies expressly.
ii) to which the statute applies by analogy.
iii) Equitable claims which are covered by
ordinary rules of laches.
Doctrine of laches- Plaintiff’s unreasonable
delay is a weapon of defence by the
defendant against the plaintiff.
 Limitation
• This maxim does not apply when-
• i) where the law of limitation expressly applies
• ii) where it applies by analogy, and
• iii) where the law of limitation does not apply
but the cases are governed by ordinary rules
of laches.
 Recognition ?? –Case Law ??
  
6. EQUALITY IS EQUITY

Meaning
• Plato defined that “If you cannot find any
other, equality is the proper basis.” This
maxim is also explained as “equity delighteth
in equality”, which means that as far as
possible equity would put the litigating
parties on an equal level so far as their rights
and responsibilities are concerned.
• Justice Fry said, “When I say equality, I do
not mean equality in its simplest form, but
which has been sometimes called
proportionate equity.”
 Application and cases
Application of this maxim can be understood
from the following:
i) Equity’s dislike for joint tenancy and
presumption of tenancy-in-common
ii) Equal distribution of joint funds and joint
purchases
iii) Contribution between co-trustees, co-
sureties and co-contractors
iv) Ratable distribution of legacies
v) Marshalling of assets
  
7. EQUITY LOOKS TO THE INTENT RATHER THAN THE FORM

Meaning
 Common law was very rigid and inflexible. It
could not respond favourably to the demand
of time. It regarded the form of a transaction
to be more important than its substance. It
looked to the very letter of the agreement
and not the intention behind it. On the other
hand, Equity looks to the spirit not to the
letter, it looks to the intention of parties and
not to the words.
 Application and cases
In case of sale of land, if a party fails to
complete it within the fixed for it, he
is at Common Law, in breach of the
contract, but equity does not take
this rigid attitude. It allows a
reasonable time to the party to
complete it.
The application can be seen in the
following instances-
• i) Relief against penalties and forfeitures
• ii) Relief in regard to precatory trust
• iii) Relief in regard to mortgages, the
doctrine of equity of redemption and the
doctrine of clogs on redemptions
• iv) Attitude in regard to statute of
frauds.
  
8. EQUITY LOOKS ON THAT AS DONE WHICH OUGHT TO BE DONE

 Meaning
If someone undertakes an obligation for the
other, equity courts look on it as done and as
producing the same results as if the
obligation had been actually performed.
Equity courts therefore look to the acts of the
person bound by his conscience and interpret
and construe them in such a way that they
amount to what ought to be done.
Application and cases
The working of this maxim can be seen-
i) the doctrine of conversion
ii) Executory contracts
iii) doctrine of part performance
 i) Doctrine of conversion- In the case of
Lachmere v. Lady Lachmere, money was taken
as land. Doctrine of conversion can convert
the money into immovable property and
immovable property into money.
ii) Executory contracts-
(a) Assignment of future property: When an assignment
of property was made for consideration equity treated
it as a contract to assign. When the property came into
existence in such a contract it was treated as a
complete assignment. As a leading case on this point,
Holroyd v. Marshall can be cited.
(b) Agreement for a transfer: In Walsh v. Lonsdale, it
was decided that an agreement for lease could be
treated as a lease in equity.
iii) Doctrine of part performance: Under the equitable
doctrine of part performance contracts pertaining to
land were allowed to be formed by oral evidence
where one of the parties did acts of pats performance.
Maddison v. Alderson is a leading case on this point.
 Recognition ?? Case Law??
  
9. EQUITY IMPUTES AN INTENTION TO FULFILL AN OBLIGATION

Meaning
Equity considered and estimated acts
of parties. Thus where a person is
under an obligation to do a certain
act, and he does some other act
which is capable of being regarded as
an act in fulfillment of his obligation.
In other words a person is presumed
to do what he is bound to do.
• In Sowden v. Sowden, a husband
covenanted with the trustee of his
marriage settlement to pay to them
£50,000 to be laid out by them in
purchase of land in a particular area D.
He, in fact, never paid the sum, but after
marriage purchased the land at D in his
own name, for £50,000. He died and
could not bring the land into settlement.
Equity courts construed that he
purchased land to fulfill his obligation.
 Application and cases
 i) Doctrine of performance and
satisfaction- Sowden v. Sowden and
Lachmere v. Lady Lachmere cases are
examples of performance. Satisfaction is
the donation of a thing with it is to be
taken in extinguishment of some prior
claim of donee. This maxim is helpful
where the presumed intention of the
testator is to be found out; where the
intention is express the maxim has no
application.
ii) Ademption- Ademption is a transfer of
property which operates as a complete or
pro tanto substitution for a gift previously
made by the will of the donor.
• e.g. X by his will leaves his daughter Y
one-third of his residuary estate.
Thereafter on Y’s marriage X gives Y
20,000 Taka. X dies. 20,000 Taka is an
ademption -complete or proportionately
to the gift of one-third share of the
residuary estate of X.
iii) Presumption of advancement- When a
purchase or transfer of property without
consideration is made by a father or a
person in loco parentis, to or in the name
of a child, a presumption arises. And the
presumption is that it was for the benefit
of the child. Such presumption, is known
as ‘advancement’.
The doctrine applies to cases of parent
and child, husband and wife, of mother
and child and even to illegitimate child,
but not to a man and his mistress.
iv) Relief against defective execution of
power of appointment- A power is an
authority vested in a person to deal
with or dispose of property not his own.
A power may be legal or equitable but
after 1925 all powers of appointment
are necessarily equitable.