Principles of equity

The body of the Law of Equity is preserved in the following twelve maxims. These maxims
are general principles adopted to administer justice and fairness. They govern the Law of
Equity and are discretionary.

1. Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy

This maxim, in Latin, is “Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium ” which means “where there is a right there is
a remedy”. The maxim states that in situations where the common law confers a right, it also
gives a remedy for infringement of that right. It must be kept in mind that this principle is
applicable only where the right and the remedy both are within the jurisdiction of the court. In
the Law of Equity, injunction and specific performance are also the types of remedies
available. In Ashby v. white a qualified voter was not allowed to vote and thus he sued the
returning officer, this case deals with the principle laid down in this maxim, i.e. if a person has
been granted a right, he is also granted with a remedy.

2. Equity follows the law

This maxim is also expressed as “aequitas sequitur legem”, which means that equity will not
allow a remedy that is contrary to the law. This maxims lays down that equity supplements
law and does not supersede it. The discretion of the court is governed by law and equity
which are subservient to one another. Wherever the law can be followed, it must be followed.
In the cases where the law does not apply specifically, this maxim suffers limitation. But in
modern-day England and Wales, the law follows equity. Section 49(1) of the Senior Courts
Act,1981 clearly specifies that in case there is a conflict between the rule of law and equity,
equity shall prevail.

3. He who seeks equity must do equity

This maxim states that the plaintiff is also subject to the powers of the court and is thus
obligated to perform his duties following the principle of equity. The concern of this maxim is
the future conduct of the plaintiff. Thus, this maxim applies to the party who seeks equitable
relief as it stipulates that the plaintiff must also recognize and submit to the right of his
adversary. This maxim was attracted in the case of Lodge v. National Union Investment
Company Limited where Lodge borrowed money from an unregistered moneylender and
thus upon an action by him to recover the securities, the court refused to make an order
except upon the terms that Lodge should repay the money which had been advanced to him.
This maxim is also applicable in the following legal provisions:

• Section 19A of the Indian Contract Act – the plaintiff must restore all the benefits arising
from the contract which is rescinded by him.

• Section 35 of Transfer of Property Act – the doctrine of election says that a benefit under
a legal instrument must be adopted with all of the provisions and obligations under such an
instrument.

• The Doctrine of Consolidation of Mortgages- where a borrower has mortgaged different

• Order 8, Rule 6 of the CPC, the doctrine of set-off – in case of mutual debt between two
litigating parties, the amount due to one party shall be set-off by the same amount which is
due to the other party and only the residuary amount shall be claimed.

4. He who comes to equity must come with clean hands

This doctrine relates to the past conduct of the parties and states that the person who
comes to the court seeking equity must not have involved in an inequitable act himself in the
past. This maxim is concerned with the past behaviour of the plaintiff. The maxim does not
concern the general behaviour of the plaintiff, the defence of unclean hands is only
applicable in situations where there is nexus between the applicant’s wrongful act and the
right that he wishes to enforce.

This principle was upheld in the case of D & C Builders Ltd v. Rees where the claim of the
plaintiff to apply promissory estoppel was rejected because he had taken unfair advantage
of the poor financial position of the defendant’s builder company and thus had not come
with clean hands.
If the plaintiff is involved in fraud or misrepresentation that concerns the respective case
then he cannot demand equity. This principle is also adopted in Section 17, 18, and 20 of
the Specific Relief Act, which lay down that a plaintiff’s unfair conduct will disentitle him to
the equitable relief of specific performance of a contract.

5. Delay defeats equity

The Latin maxim for this principle is “Vigilantibus non dormientibus aequitas subvenit” which
means that Equity assists the vigilant and not those who sleep on their rights. Unreasonable
delay in bringing forth a claim is known as laches. Laches may also result in dismissal of the
claims. Thus, a party must assert an action within a period of reasonable time. There are
certain situations where the law of limitation is expressly applied, in such cases, there is a
particularized legal situation where a time period, which has been expressly prescribed, has
elapsed and the party is barred from bringing a suit of action.

In case of laches, the defence of acquiescence can be applied by the court and the plaintiff
may be disallowed from seeking an equitable remedy as the court would assume that he has
acquiesced to the questionable actions of the defendant. The equitable rule of acquiescence
and laches was first introduced in the case of Chief Young Dede v. African Association Ltd.

6.Equality is equity

This principle is expressed by the Latin maxim Aequitas est quasi aequalitas which means
equality is equity. This maxim implies that as far as possible, equity strives to put the
litigating parties on an equal level and equate their rights and responsibilities. The ordinary
law may give one party advantage over the other but the court of equity, wherever possible,
puts the parties on an equal footing

7. Equity looks to the intent rather than the form

This is the maxim by the means of which an equitable remedy was established which allows
for the terms of a contract to be interpreted by taking into account the intention of the
parties. The common law was very rigid and could not respond favourably to demand of
time, this meant regarding the form of the contract more important than the substance.
Equity, on the other hand, looks to the spirit and not the letter of the contract. This principle is
enshrined in the provision for relief against penalty and forfeitures which states that the
object of a contract is to perform it and not the compensation, thus the compensation must
be proportionate to the damage and not benefit the receiver (Section 74 of the Indian
Contract Act provides for claiming reasonable compensation). In the case of the contract for
the sale of land, if the party fails to complete within a fixed period, equity allows reasonable
time to the party to complete it (Parkin v. Thorold).

8. Equity looks on that as done which ought to have been done

This maxim states that in cases where individuals are required, by law or by agreement, to
perform any act of legal significance, equity will regard that act as having been done as it
ought to have been done even before it actually happened. This principle results in the legal
phenomenon of equitable conversion under which the buyer obtains the equitable title to the
property even before the sale has been legally effected.

9. Equity imputes an intention to fulfill an obligation

This maxim means that if a person is obligated to do one act and does another, the act done
by him will be taken as a close enough approximation to the fulfillment of the required
obligation. For example, if a debtor leaves a legacy to his creditor which is equal to or greater
than the debt owed by him, then equity would regard such legacy as the fulfillment of the
obligation of the payment of the debt owed by the person.

10. Equity acts in personam

This maxim states the equity applies to a person rather than a property. In England, the Court
of Common law and Chancery Courts were distinguished by the fact that the former had
authority over the person as well as property but the latter only acted over people. The Equity
court’s coercive power arose from their authority to hold the violator in contempt of court
and punish accordingly. Since the law of equity was applicable to the persons and not the
property, it could also apply to the property outside a jurisdiction, provided that the person
was within the jurisdiction. In the case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore, an order of specific
performance was made for the plaintiff who brought a boundary dispute case to an English
Court, yet the land was situated in Maryland, USA. the jurisdiction of the court was applicable
to the parties as they both were English and lived in England.
11. Where the equities are equal, the first in time prevails

Where the legal estate is absent in the matter and the contest is among equitable estate only,
the person whose equity is attached to the property first in time will be entitled to priority
over others. Here, the term equities refer to multiple equitable interests. Thus, in case two
equities are equal, the original interest, i.e., the first in time will succeed. For example, if A
grants an equitable mortgage to X and then subsequently grants the same mortgage to Y,
X’s mortgage shall take priority.

12. Where the equities are equal, the law prevails

In case neither of the parties has been wronged and both stand at an equitable position, the
legal remedy will be prioritized. Equity shall not provide any specific remedy in case both the
parties have equal causes. Thus, in such cases, the parties must bring a legal action rather
than an equitable action.

Conclusion

The laws related to equity have evolved through precedent and the intention is to grant
equitable rights and remedies to the parties. The decisions of equity have largely been based
on the judge’s discretion and understanding of the fair and just cause. Equity dates back to
the centuries ago and is still as relevant, so is the case with law. Law and equity both are
important for justice. Where the rigidities of the law threaten justice, equity prevails, and
where equity has no remedy the letter of law is followed. Justice, thus, depends upon both
and thus, both must be consulted in order to deliver justice.