Date Posted: 11/23/2011 7:27:40 AM
Posted By: Raychelle Membership Level: Silver Total Points: 184
This is a fundamental maxim of equity that requires that he who seeks intervention of a court of equity in a matter must ensure that he does nothing to tarnish his application.This maxim is differentiated from 'He who seeks equity must do equity' in that the former looks at an applicant's past conduct while the latter focuses on their future conduct.Case law has been established to express this maxim. In Coatsworth V Johnson,a tenant entered into a lease of 21 years with the landlord.He failed to pay rent and the defendant ousted him,considering him to be no more than a tenant at will.The plaintiff moved to court seeking specific performance but was denied as he had not adhered to the agreement to pay rent.He did not come to Equity with clean hands.See also Mountford v Scott and the dicta in Cross v Cross.The maxim however engages the specific conduct of a person,not general character.In Loughran V Loughran the judge held that courts of equity do not require that its subjects be of impeccable morals.In the case of Derring v Earl of Winchelsea,X took out bond.Derring who was X's brother,The Earl of Winchelsea and ano her were his sureties.The funds of the bond went to waste and Derring was forced to pay all.Later,Derring sought to recorver money from the Earl of Winchelsea and the other.They refused saying Derring was of moral laxity and had helped his brother squander the money.Eyre LCB held that the courts do not look at general conduct of a person but their specific conduct in connection to the case.Also consider: *Duchess of Argyll V Duke of Argyll*Tinsley v Milligan*Tribe v Tribe
Next: Conquering writer's blockPrevious: Characteristics of a good business letter.
Get premium membership