“EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW”
LAW OF EQUITY AND TRUST
Respectfully submitted to: Dr. Aditya Tomer Faculty of LoTE, Amity Law School, Centre-II
Submitted by: Arjunveer Khanna A11911112075 B.A.LLB (H)
INTRODUCTION
The law of equity began in the court of chancery which was set up because a fair and just remedy could not be given through common law as monetary compensation was not suitable and sometimes a well deserving plaintiff was denied because the writs where quite narrow and rigid. Courts were guided by the previous decisions and that's how the twelve maxims were formulated. These maxims limit the granting of equitable remedies for those who have not acted in an equitable manner. The decisions of the court of chancery and common law were constantly conflicting. This rivalry was ended in The Earl of Oxfords case 1615. In which the king stated ‘Where common law and equity conflict equity should prevail'. The two courts are now unified and the same judges give decisions out common law and equity. The law relating to equity is largely built on precedent. The rules have been built upon by previous situations which they have dealt with. Although there has been a lot of disagreement about changing laws and adding to the law of equity, the rules that have been accepted by proceeding judges became precedent and are now known as maxims and are used as guidelines by the court. I agree with the statement by Denning as equity is born from the interpretation of judges and there problem solving abilities. There are a lot of different rules regarding equity that have all been created through precedent. It is my opinion that although Equity dates back hundreds of years and the law is still just as relevant. There are alterations to the law as recent as the 1975 Eves v. Eves case. I am of the opinion that as long as there are judges to create precedent there can be new law created in equity.
THE MAXIM: EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW:
Courts will firstly apply common law and if this is not fair then an equitable remedy will be provided. This maxim sets out that equity is not in place to overrule judgements in common law but rather to make sure that parties don't suffer an injustice.
•
This maxim means that equity respects the law. Accordingly equity will refrain itself from unnecessarily overriding or replacing the law instead it will try to uphold the law as much as possible.
•
This maxim is demonstrated largely and illustrated by the many instances in which equity has adopted the same position as the law. By upholding the statutory provision of time frames for the institution of cause of action,equity is simpl y following the law
•
Secondly in Re Bostocks settlement(1912) and in Sexton v Horton , the courts have confirmed that where the law has created an estate in land the courts will try to respect those estates and if those estates have been created using certain technical terms then equity will use those same terms that the law has used(same interpretation).
•
Even though equity follows the law. The words b y the judge of the New York Supreme Court in Graf V Hope Building Co. “equity follows the law but not slavishly not always.” its for that reason that the court in the cases of Gibb V Guid and Hunter V Gibbon the courts refused follow provisions of the law on time limitations.
•
Equity has no clash with law neither does it overide the provisions of law, nor is it the enemy of law. It adopts and follows the basic rules of law. It is said that equity is not a body of jurisprudence acting contrary to law but is rather a supplement to law. It is a well know principle that equity follows the analogies of law, the equity does not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it, to supplement it, to explain it. Equity respects every word of law.
•
Cowper V Cowper (1734), 2P WNS 720
The discretion of the court is to be governed by the rules of law and equity, which are not oppose, but each, in turn, to be subservient to the other, this discreti on, in some cases, follows the law implicitly, in other assists it and advances the remedy; in other against it relieves against the abuse, or allays the rigour of it but no case does it contradict or overturn the grounds of principle thereof.
APPLICATION
•
It has application in the following two aspects;
1.
As to legal estates, rights and interest;
As regard to legal estates, rights and interests, equity was and is still is bound by the rules of law and it has no discretion to deviate there from. Equity does not allow an unfair use to be made of legal rights so equity follows the law in regard to the principle of primogeniture. This principle is to the effect that the right of the eldest child, especially the eldest son, to inherit the entire estate of one or both parents. In Strickland v Aldrige(1804) it was held that the exclusion of the younger member of a family from property according to the rule of primogeniture doesn’t create any particular circumstances entitling to a relief at equity, because the eldest son gets only what he is entitled to get in law.
2.
As to equittable rights and interest
In many cases equity acts by analogy to the rules of law in relation to equitable titles and estates. Equitable estates are guided by the rules of decent as legal estate
IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF MAXIM
(i) (ii)
Equity adopts and follows the rule of law in all cases applic able Equity follows the analogy of law
EXCEPTIONS
(i) (ii)
Where a rule of law did not specifically apply. Where even by analogy the rule of law did not apply, equity formulated and applied it, own rules
CONCLUSION
•
To conclude I can say that equity always follows the law in the sense of obeying it and conforming to its general rules and policy whether contained in common law or statute law.
The rules of equity cannot override statute law. The rules of equity cannot override the specific provisions of law.
