The Blip Blop Blog (Team Entity)

12) Delay defeats equity. The Limitation Act 1980 lays down a limitation period after which the applicant or the litigant may not be successful. For example, Section 22 and 23 of the Act read as follows: - Section 22 Time limit for actions claiming personal estate of a deceased person. Subject to section 21(1) and (2) of this Act— (a) no action in respect of any claim to the personal estate of a deceased person or to any share or interest in any such estate (whether under a will or on intestacy) shall be brought after the expiration of twelve years from the date on which the right to receive the share or interest accrued; and (b) no action to recover arrears of interest in respect of any legacy, or damages in respect of such arrears, shall be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the interest became due. Actions for an account Section 23 Time limit in respect of actions for an account. An action for an account shall not be brou

11) He who comes to equity must come with clean hands. As per the maxim any applicant or litigant who seeks the aid and assistance of a court of equity must do so with clean hands i.e. his or her actions cannot be tainted with fraud or malice and there cannot be a hidden agenda behind the scenes. He or she cannot have acted unfairly or unjustly, oppressively or arbitrarily prior to seeking the aid and assistance of a court of equity. Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Jessica Ward

10) He who seeks equity must do equity. As per the maxim, an applicant or a litigant who is relying on equity must have acted equitably himself or herself before he or she can petition a court of equity to intervene on his or her behalf. If the applicant’s or litigant’s actions are tainted with fraud or malice than a court of equity certainly would not intervene on his or her behalf. Whether a court of equity chooses to intervene or otherwise is entirely at the discretion of the court and a court of equity will be reluctant to intervene or will be hesitant to intervene if it finds that the actions of the applicant or the litigant is tainted with fraud and malice. In Haywood v Cope (1858), it was decided that, as per Lord Romilly MR, - the discretion of the Court must be exercised according to fixed and settled rules; you cannot exercise a discretion by merely considering what, as between the parties, would be fair to be done; what one person may consider fair, another person

9) Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy i.e. where there is a wrong equity will intervene to right the wrong. Equity will intervene to remedy the defects of the common law and this maxim is in line with the Latin legal maxim ubi jus ibi remedium (“where there is a wrong, there must be a remedy”). Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Jessica Ward

8) Equity acts in personam. Equity acts against a person as opposed to acting in rem i.e. acting against a thing or acting over something that the court does not have jurisdiction against or acting against the world at large. Hence equity does not interfere with common law but rather acts in tandem with it or alongside it to ensure that justice is done. When acting in personam, the courts generally will not interfere with land or titles abroad, or decide on matters which do not fall within the scope, ambit or jurisdiction of the court. Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Jessica Ward

7) Equity regards what ought to be done as done. This maxim applies to remedies like specific performance i.e. where the courts will compel a party to perform its stipulated duties. In Nutbrown v Thornton (1805) the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendants to purchase some machines. Subsequently the defendant refused to deliver the machines and because the defendant was the sole vendor for that type of machines, the plaintiff brought an action against the defendants and sought specific performance as a remedy. The court granted specific performance and compelled the defendants to perform their duties as stipulated by the contract. Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Jessica Ward

6) Equity imputes an intention to fulfil an obligation: - Where a person has an obligation and the person acts, towards fulfilling the obligation or in furtherance of fulfilling the obligation, whether intentionally or otherwise, equity will deem that the person has intended to fulfill his or her obligation. Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Jessica Ward

5) Equity will not permit a statute to be used as an instrument of fraud. If a court finds that by insisting that the provisions of a statute be complied with will facilitate or permit fraud then equity will intervene on behalf of the aggrieved party. In Banister v Banister (1948) Mrs. Banister inherited two cottages upon the death of her husband and she sold both cottages to her brother in law for £150 less than the market value on the promise that she could live in the cottage that she was occupying for the rest of her life. Upon the completion of the sale her brother in law sought to evict her, and Mrs. Banister claimed that she had a beneficial life interest that arose when her brother in law gave her an oral undertaking that she could remain in the property for life. Her brother in law sought to rely on s. 53 (1) (b) of the Law of Property Act 1925 which reads as follows:- “a declaration of trust respecting any land or any interest therein must be manifested and proved

4) Equity looks at substance rather than form. Equity looks into the subject matter and decides on the facts rather than merely complying with the legal formalities. In Parkin v Thorold (1852) Lord Romilly (MR) recognized the fact that equity will distinguish between what is a matter of form and what is a matter of substance. If they find that by looking at the form or by merely adhering to formalities, the substance will be defeated, then equity will go further and look into the substance of the matter. Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Jessica Ward

3) The following two maxims are concerned with priorities: - a) Where the equities are equal the law prevails i.e. when two parties have acted equitably, and there is no evidence of either party acting in bad faith (mala fide) or there is no evidence of fraud, then equity cannot provide a remedy and the law will prevail. b) Where the equities are equal the first in time prevails. The second maxim is slightly more complicated than the first. When there are two equities i.e. two parties with equal interests than the first party that registered his or her interest or the original equity will succeed as opposed to the next. It goes back to the issue of notice and at times when there is an equitable interest involved it is best to give notice to others that such a right or interest exists. Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Jessica Ward