The Blip Blop Blog (Team Entity)

In R v Thornton (1996) the victim was particularly abusive towards his wife and on the day in question he threw his wife out of the house after abusing her together with a suitcase filled with her clothes. She returned later that day and tried to patch things up and the victim was even more abusive towards her. She then went into the kitchen and grabbed hold of a kitchen knife and she tried to patch things up again but her husband continued to be abusive and finally she stabbed him in the stomach with the kitchen knife and killed him. She was charged with murder and at her trial she raised the defense of diminished responsibility but she did not raise the defense of provocation. The judge however did direct the jury on provocation. The jury convicted the accused for murder and the accused appeal. Her appeal was allowed on the grounds that she suffered from a syndrome called battered women’s syndrome. From the decisions in the above cases we can come to the conclusion tha

I’m sure we’ve all wondered if it is possible to commit the perfect crime, and while the term itself belongs firmly within the pages of book or a novel and has little or no practical application or implication it is worth considering some the many possibilities, if anything, just for the sake of argument. Before we go further it is in reality difficult to commit the perfect crime because of the advances made in the field of science, in the medical field and in the field of forensics – which many people find interesting because it is essentially the field of crime solving that involves the use of modern day equipment and while the super-sleuth Sherlock Holmes relied on the powers of deduction and observation, the modern crime solver is more reliant on computers and is more at home in a lab than he or she is at a crime scene. Our accused is the battered wife. There are various moral questions that need to be raised and I think it is fairly obvious to most people that wife abus

15) Equity will not assist a volunteer. A volunteer in this context is a person who had not given consideration. In Currie v Misa (1875) it was held that consideration from the perspective of the law may consist of some right, benefit, interest or profit accruing to the party or some loss, sufferance, detriment, or responsibility incurred by the party. Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Jessica Ward

14) Equity is equality. When there is nothing to indicate otherwise equity will divide any funds equally among all those who are entitled to it. In Burrough v Philcox the testator left the proceeds of his trust to any relative his child should nominate, and his child died without nominating any relatives and when the matter was brought before the courts it was held that the proceeds should be divided equally among all those who are entitled to it.  However, if such a division was not possible that the proceeds would not be divided because it is clearly not what the settlor would have intended see McPhail v Doulton. Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Jessica Ward

13) Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee – the maxim speaks for itself and as far as a trust is concerned, it takes precedence regardless of whether the settlor has appointed a trustee or not and in the absence of a trustee, whoever has legal title will be considered or regarded as a trustee or the court will appoint someone to act as trustee and in instances where the appointed trustee is dead, the court will step in to appoint a new trustee. Copyright © 2019 by Dyarne Jessica Ward

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