Define ‘Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy’
Equity has developed a number of remedies to come into play where common law damages are inadequate.
Seddon v Commercial Salt 1925
Define ‘Equity follows the law’
Equity cannot overrule statute.
Equity will not overrule common law unless there is unconscionability.
However, where there is a conflict between common law and equity, equity prevails - Supreme Court of Judicature Acts 1873 s.25(11)
Define ‘Where there is equal equity, the law shall prevail’
In situations where there is no clear distinction between the parties as to who holds the better claim in equity, the common law principle which best first the case is applied.
So, where equity produces an equal result, the common law prevails.
Define ‘Where the equities are equal, the first in time shall prevail’
Where two claimants have equally good cases, equity will favour whomever acquired the rights first
Define ‘Delay defeats equity’
Too much delay will prevent access to equitable remedies (the equitable doctrine of laches)
However, as equity follows the law, the Limitation Act 1980 prevails
Define ‘He who seeks equity must do equity’
A claimant will not receive the courts support unless they have acted fairly themselves -
Neeson v Clarkson (1845)
Define ‘He who comes to equity must do so with clean hands’
An applicant for an equitable remedy will not receive that remedy where he or she has not acted equitably herself.
Jones v Lenthal (1669)
Define ‘Equality is equity’
Where both parties have an equitable interest, there is a presumption that the interests are equal, in the absence of reasons otherwise.
E.g. where there is a trust of a family home, there is a presumption that the shares will be equal. This also applies when there is silence as to the shares appointed to each beneficiary.
Define ‘Equity looks to the intent rather than the form’
Parkin v Thorold [1852] 5 WLUK 64
Equity will look at the intent of the parties, rather than the words used.
Trusts can be created if there is clear intention, even without the use of the word ‘trust’ - Paul v Constance [1977]
Define ‘Equity regards as done that which ought to be done’
Rose v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1951] 2 All E.R. 959
The settlor or donor is required to do all that they ought to do, before the gift/trust is out of their hands.
Define ‘Equity imputes an intention to fulfil an obligation’
Where an act is performed, though not expressed as being in fulfilment of an obligation, equity will hold that the act is in fulfilment of that obligation (rebuttal presumption)
I.e. a woman owes a debt to a man. She dies, but had left money to the man in her will for an unspecified purpose. Equity will presume the money was left to cover the debt.
This presumption can be rebutted by some contingent evidence.
Define ‘Equity acts in personam’
Earl of Oxford case
Equity’s jurisdiction is always exercised against the person and the judgments bind the defendant.
Only the person whose conscience is or should be affected is bound.
- the courts decisions could not be enforceable in rem (against the world)
Thereby, equitable decisions are not enforceable against bona fide purchasers as their conscience is not affected.
Define ‘Equity will not perfect an imperfect gift’
To perfect a gift, the transferor must do all that is necessary/in their power to validly create the right.
Milroy v Lord [1862] 7 WLUK 110
Define ‘Equity will not assist a volunteer’
Pennington v Waine [2002] EWCA Civ 227
This maxim is a vulnerability to equity will not perfect an imperfect gift by creating a new maxim :
‘Although equity will not assist a volunteer, it will not strive officiously to defeat a gift’.
—- In this case, a donor’s intent was held to validate an imperfect gift without formal transfer.
- the issue would hinge on unconscionability (the donors conscience)
Define ‘equity will not allow a statute to be used as an instrument of fraud’
Rochefocauld v Boustead [1898]
Oral agreements can create enforceable trusts despite the statute of frauds, which typically requires written evidence.
— The court would not allow the statute to be used to create a fraudulent situation
