Based on the defects of common law, many litigants petitioned the King, the Justice of Fountain so that the King will be able to preside on the cases.But then later, the King passed the workload to the Lord Chancellor. Soon the Lord Chancellor start to make decision on his own authority rather than as a substitute for the King. This has tribute to the development of the Court of Chancery. The court is not bound by any particular rules, neither does not followed binding precedent. All decision are based on the right and wrong of the Chancellor. Many have resented about the various decision which are made according to the length of the Chancellor foot. The court follows the merits of a case and not precedent. In a particular case, in Earl of Oxford case 1625, there have been conflicting judgement between the common law and the Court of Chancery judgement. This matter was later referred to the King, and the King have decided that now and in future, if both law conflict, equity shall always prevail. Besides that contrary with common law, equity recognises trust and mortgages. Equity recognises and enforce the rights of the beneficiary. While for mortgages, equity provides a means ‘equity of redemption’ which gave the mortgagor the right to redeem the property after the set date provided certain formalities are complied with.
When the Judicature Act 1973-1975 have been passed, it has changed the basic structure of our court today. The act had fused the administration of common law and equity. All the courts in the country, will be able to grant common law and equitable remedies. There will not be different procedures, if a plaintiff wants to apply either for common law or equitable remedies.
There are equitable maxims that need to be satisfied, before equity rules are applied in the court. These maxims are to ensure consistency and predictability in the law. It is also to ensure that decisions are made morally fair. The maxims are, he who comes to equity must come with clean hands, he who seeks equity must do equity and delay defeats equity. For the first maxim, he who comes to equity must come with clean hands can be construded as when a plaintiff have been themselves in the wrong, equitable remedies will not be granted. In Rees v D&C Builders, the building firm did some work for the Rees couple. The couple had paid proportion from the full amount. When the builders have accomplished their job, they asked for the balance payment from the couple, but the couple refuse to pay the balance of the full amount as they claimed that the builders have done the work deficiently. Hence, the builders reluctantly accepted the amount that the couple is willing to pay as the builders were having financial difficulties. The couple knew about the builders were having financial difficulties. Later, the builders sued the couple for the balance of the payment, but the couple appealed that the court should grant promissory estoppel to make promises binding thou there are not, about the builders have consented to accept the amount paid by them. The court refuses to grant it as the Rees couple has taken unfair advantage of the builders and hence did not come with clean hands.
The second maxim, he who seeks equity must do equity. Those who come to equity must be prepared to act fairly towards their opponent. In Chappell v Times Newspaper, the employees have decided to go on strike. While the employeer ordered that they will be sacked if they do not stop the act. The employees applied to the court to grant an injunction to stop the employeer from bringing out that threat. The court held that if an injuction were to be granted, the employees need to stop their strike immediately. However they refused, the injunction was not granted.
While for the maxims of delay defeats equity. If a plaintiff were to take an unreasonably long time to bring an action in court, equitable remedies will not be available. In Leaf v International Galleries, the buyer bought a potrait which was claimed to be a genuine constable by the seller. But years later, the buyer found out that it was nothing more than just a sort. The buyer appealed to the court for recission, but the court did not grant any, as the buyer has took a long period of time to bring an action.
After satisfiying the equitable remedies, then equitable remedies will be granted. There are various types of remedies which are developed to suit according to different types of circumstances. The remedies are injunction, rectification, recission, specific performance. An injunction, is an order made in personam against the defendant. A court order preventing a person from doing something. For example, Mareva Injunction. Under Mareva Injunction, the court can freeze the assets of a debtor who has gone aboard. It also prevents a defendant from disposing of specified assets pending a judgement of the court. Another example will be the Anton Piller order, which order the defendant to allow the plaintiff’s solicitor’s to enter into premises to extract relevant incriminating documents relating to the defendant’s infringing acts.
In additional to that, while for rectification, when a transaction is embodied in a written instrument which, by mistake, does not express the true agreement of the parties, the remedy of rectification is necessary to show that both parties were in complete agreement. No 3rd parties shall involve. Besides that, recission here involve in a contract contains an inherent cause of validity, for example fraud, which makes it voidable at the suit of one parties. If and when that party declares his intention not to be bound by the contract, he is said to rescind it. It places both parties to the position in which they stood before the contract was entered into. Specific performance, is an order to a person to fulfil his obligations under a contract. For example, when contracts have been exchanged for the sale of a house, the court may order a reluctant seller to complete the sale.
Hence, the development of changes from common law to equity has benefited the whole society largely as they will be able to seek better redress. It also ensures flexibility in the law as equitable remedies are discretionary. This subject to, thou a plaintiff maybe awarded the common law remedy, but the court have the discretion to chose whether is it just to award equitable remedies.
