! EQUITY! LAWS%2015%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1!

Transcription

1 EQUITY LAWS%2015% 1

2 TheHistryandNaturefEquity WhatisEquity?HistryandNaturefEquity Equityreferstthebdyfcases,maxims,dctrines,rules,principlesandremediesthatderive frmthespecificjurisdictinestablishedbythecurtfchancery.itremainsakeypillarfthe Australianlegalsystem,withtheHCAreferringtthenrmativecmplexityfthelegalsystem withtheinteractinbetweentherulesflaw,principlesfequity,requirementsfstatuteand betweenlegal,equitableandstatutryremedies (Bankstwn)City)Cuncil)v)Alamd)Hldings).) Histryandtheratinalefequityhldittgether. AllequitabledctrinesriginatedintheequitablejurisdictinftheLrdChancellr sittingjudiciallyinthecurtfchancery WiththeCL,yuhadtdevelpevidenceinaparticularwayandfityurfactswithinthe writsfactin Requirementsandcnstrainingnatureculdleadtunjustresults ThisiswhypeplemvedtwardstheChanceryi.e.becauseitperated ncnscience,allwedwitnessestbeheardetc Chancellrwasthe funtainfjustice whtktheplacefthe KingwhenpepleusedtpetitinttheKingfrassistance (delegatedprergativepwer) OriginallytheLrdChancellrswereecclesiasticandvertimebecamelawyersand develpedprinciples/rulesastwhenwuldexercisejurisdictinandwhatremedies theywuldfcusn(whlesystemflawbegantdevelp) Thus,asMaitland(1936)ntes,whileequitywasriginallyenfrcedbythe Curtsf Equity, nwwenlngerhavecurtswhicharemerelycurtsfequity itisabdyf rulesadministeredbyenglishcurtsfjusticewhichispartfthegenerallegalsystem The underlying principle f equity is cnscience. Equity cntrls/cnstrains CL judgments t cntrl what happens with them and if can be enfrced.thedevelpmentfequityledta system f principles which develped and it resulted in it lking and perating like a rival systemandcausingchancery/cltcnflict(i.e.wuldgetjudgmentincl;rushfftchancery tgetinjunctintpreventenfrcingcl). The$Earl$f$Oxfrd s$case(1615)1chrep1(21er485) Represents quasiureslutin between the tw curts between Lrd Chancellr Elsemere (Chancery)andLrdCke(CJftheKing sbench)whculdn tstandthefactthatpeplekept gettinginjunctinstpreventtheenfrcementfcljudgments. CllegewnedlandinLndn Wasthenaturefthecllegethattheyculdn tselllandtheywned Astheyculdn tditlegally,triedtgrantittthequeenandthequeencangrantt purchaserandthenpurchasercangivethemney Purchaserbuysthelandandspendscnsiderablesumsfmneyimprvingthelandand thensellsitttheearlfoxfrd TheEarldiesandthesninheritstheprperty Thecllegedecidesthatitwasamistakeandwantprpertybackbyarguingthatthe landwasntvalidlygivenaway Theypurprttgrantaleasefthelandtatenantandthentheyevictthetenantfrm theland(tenantcansuefrwrngfulevictin)andthenicurttheycansaywenever legitimatelygavethelandaway Legally,therewasntacapacitytgrantlandinthefirstplace 2

3 ButthepersnwhlsesgestChanceryttryandgetajudgmentsayingthatthisis againstgdcnscience Lrd Ellesmere: Chancery is there t crrect Mens Cnsciences fr Frauds, Breach f Trusts, Wrngs and Oppressins, f what Nature sever they be and t sften and mllifytheextremityflaw SaysthatLawandEquityaredistinctintheircurts,theirjudgesandtheirrules f justice yet they bth act t the same end which is t d right even thugh Justice/Mercydifferintheireffectsandperatins WhereajudgmentisbtainedbyOppressin,WrngandahardCnsciencethe Chancellrwillfrustrateitandsetitaside,ntfranyerrrrwrngrdefectin the judgment but fr the cnscience f the individual party that has been wrnged The$judgment$in$the$case$reveals$a$mral$jurisprudence$that$was$sphisticated,$develped$ and$cherent$by$the$year$1615,$within$a$legal$system$which$treated$cmmn$law$and$equity$ as$ tw$ separate$ bdies$ f$ law.$ it$ als$ illustrates$ a$ pattern$ f$ cntextual$ legal$ and$ mral$ reasning$which$has$persisted$in$the$angleaustralian$equitable$jurisdictin$until$this$day.$$ P L Lughlan (In Parkinsn, 103) ntes that the Aristtelian cnceptin f equity as a rectificatin f law where the law falls shrt by reasn f its universality was f great significanceinearlyequityjurisprudencebecauseneftheperceivedsurcesfinadequacy andinjusticeinthecmmnlawwasthegeneralityfthelaw srules,andthelaw sinabilityt muld its rules t fit the circumstances ftheparticularcase.theequitablejurisdictin functinedtprevent,crrectandreversetheindividualfailuresfjusticefaruleugverned decisinumakingfrum. Tday, where the principles f CL/Equity cnflict, equitable principles prevail. This des nt meanthatequityistakingveranddisplacingthecl.equityknwstheclisthereandifthere s avalidjudgmentthiswillstayinplacebutwewilllkatyurcnsciencetdeterminewhether that s smething yu can enfrce: the cnscience f the appellant, which equity will seek t relieve is a prperly frmed and instructed cnscience.thereal task is t decide what a prperlyfrmedandinstructedcnsciencehastsay (ABC)v)Lenah)Game)Meats) TheEffectsftheJudicatureActsandthe FusinFallacy EquityandCLwerenevercmpletelydividede.g.inEnglandtheLrdChancellrhada limitedcljurisdictinandalargestatutryjurisdictin;inaustralianclniesthere werenevertwsetsfcurts(justhadthedifferentjurisdictins) EquityknewtheCL equityfllwsthelaw inthesensefitscncurrentandauxiliary jurisdictinhadlegalrightsastheirsubjectmatter Therewereareasflimitatinupnequity srecgnitinflegalrightswhichmadeit prcedurallycmplexfrpartiestlitigatin Chanceryhadnpwertdecideadisputedlegalrightrtitleasastepin prtectingitagainstinvasin BefrethejudicaturesystemChanceryhadlimitedpwerttransferasuittthe CLcurts wuldhavetstartagain(sneededtmakesureyustartedatthe rightcurtasculdbethrwnutifstartedinthewrngcurt) De$d$Reade$v$Reade(1799):beneficiaryfatrustfland;trusteehad dispsedthebeneficiary;thebeneficiarytriedtsueatclfrejectment butthiswasn tpssibleascldesntacknwledgesuchrights CurtfChancerydifferedgreatlyfrmtheCLcurtsinitsprcedures;itdidnt dispsefsuitsbytheclsystemfpleadingandralevidencefwitnesses befrejudgeandjury;itreliedheavilyupnaffidavitevidence,eschewedjuries andwasassistedbydiscveryandinterrgatries 3

4 Evenifyustartedattherightplace,mighthavetgtthecurtssequentially tgetafullremedyi.e.gtcltprvenuisance,chanceryfrinjunctin CmplicatedbythefactthattheCLdidntignreequitablerights/titlese.g.the QBntedthataplaintiff scpyrightwasheldntrustfratp(sims)v)marryat) Manyprincipleanddctrines,equitableinriginwerebrrwedbytheCLwith theresultthattheythereafterappliedthrughutthelegalsysteme.g.estppel byrepresentatinrcnductwastakentthecl Hweverrememberthat(a)theCLcurts,evenwhenadjudicatingn legalclaimsincntract/trtdidnthaveinherentpwertawardthe remediesfinjunctinandspandtherremediesand(b)theclcurts culdntentertainactinsbrughttrecverdamagesrtherrelieffr infringementfpurelyequitabletitlesandclaimse.g.abeneficiaryculd ntsuehisrhertrusteefrbreachftrustunlessinchancery TherewasalwaysachrnicdelayinChancery ExpenseinChanceryaswellasclerkswantedtbepaidperpage TheJudicatureActscameintfrcein1875 Wheretherehadbeencnflictsinprinciplebetweenlawandequitythelatter wuldprevailintheendbymeansfcmmninjunctin S25(11)ftheJudicature$Act$1873prvidedthatintheeventfa cnflictfrules,equityshuldalwaysprevail S25(1)U(10)hadaseriesfspecificprvisinsastwhat happenedinspecificinstancesfcnflict Thelegislaturealsmadegreatchangesinprcedurei.e.ablishedtheCLsystem fpleading,didawaywithldtribunalsandsetupnehighcurtandsughtt ensurethatasingletribunalinasingleprceedingwuldadministerthereinthe ttalityfthejurisdictinsftheldtribunals(supremecurtfjudicature) The SC f Judicature has different divisins (Chancery and CL divisin) but bth are part f the same curt and therefre bth had the jurisdictintgivealltheremediesthethernewuldhavedne ThegeneralsignificanceftheEnglishjudicaturelegislatinhasbeenputbyPrfessr Simpsn (1974): the effect f it must be sught largely in scial advantages secured thrugh prcedural simplificatin the s called fusin has never ccurred and was neverintended;thecatchphraseismstmisleading.theprinciplethatequitytrumped law had been established at least since the early 17 th centuryandtherearenlytw senses in which fusin culd ccur had it ccurred firstthedevelpmentfsettled, custmary r precedent based principles, rules and cncepts f equity came t differ nlyinsubstancefrmthecmmnlaw;secndly,befrethejudicatureactstherehad beenaschemefharmniusrelatinshipbetweenthetwsystems,neinwhichequity presuppsedthelawtwhichitwassupplementary thechiefeffectfthejudicature Actsupnthecmmnlawderivedfrmitsestablishingathreetieredstructurefcivil curts,mannedbythreedifferentcategriesfjudge. InAustraliatdaythisisexemplifiedintheSupreme$Curt$Act$1970(NSW)s57 and the Law$ Refrm$ (Law$ and$ Equity)$ Act$ 1972(NSW)s5 which hldthatthesccan administercncurrentlyallrulesincludingallrulesfequity Leemingin Equity,theJudicatureActsandRestitutin (2011)suggeststhatfusintk alngtimeinaustraliaastherewereneverseparatecurtsinaustraliathatneededt bejined(i.e.justhadthetwdivisins,slesspressingasitwasinengland) Effect f the Judicature Act can be seen in the example f the NSWCA case Harrisn)v)Schipp (2002). In that case, a plaintiff, wh had lst t the defendant bth at trial and n appeal subsequentlybrughtfurtherprceedingsintheequitydivisin.theplaintiffarguedthatnew evidencehad,sincetheappealbecmeavailableandthattheplaintiffwastherefreentitledin equitytbringbillfreviewprceedingsandbegrantedanewtrialnthebasisfthefresh evidence. It was held by the CA that since the judicature legislatin, there was n equitable jurisdictin vested in a single judge f the SC t set aside judgments n the grund f fresh 4

5 evidence.thejudicaturelegislatinhadablishedthebillfreviewprcedureandreplacedit withappealstthecaandthatwasthecasewhetherrntthebillfreviewjurisdictinin equitywasregardedasriginalinnaturerappellate. Fusinfallacy TheJudicaturesystemhastwessentialandcnceptuallydistincteffects First,itfusestheprceduresftheldCL/equityjurisdictinsinthesenseabve Secnd,itembdiesinstatutrymandatethesupremacyfequityverlawin casesfcnflictbetweenrules Reflectin will cnfirm that neither f these changes will give the plaintiff a cause f actinremedyradefendantadefencewhichhe/shelackedundertheldsystem Thesameresultnwbtainablebutissuedirectlyandwithutrisk f passage frmnecurttanthertbringthedisputetcnclusin TheresultftheJudicatureActshasbeencalled fusinfallacies i.e.theyareexplicable neither by applicatin f law r equity but nly a prduct f a change in substantive principlesfenglishjurisprudence Such change wuld require legislatin and the clear implicatin in the fallacies is that thiswassuppliedbythetermsfthe1873act ButwherearethetermsintheActwhichsstate?Therearenne One must ask tw questins whatdesitmeanttsayasubstantive fusin ccurredandwhatsectinsfthelegislatinhadthatresult? Maitlandclaimedthatlawandequitywerentinherentlyinppsitin equitycame nttdestrytheclbuttfulfilit;whatthismeantisntentirelyclearbutreflectedthe viewftheprpnentsfthejudicaturesystemi.e.thatlawandequitynwruninthe samestreambutdntmingletheirwaters(asburner). It is stated very plainly that the main bject f the Act was t assimilate the transactin f equity business and cmmn law business by different Curts f Judicature. It has been smetimes inaccurately called the fusin f Law and Equity but it was nt any fusin, r anythingfthekind,itwasthevestinginnetribunaltheadministratinflawandequityin everycause,actin,rdisputewhichshuldcmebefrethattribunal.thatwasthemeaningf theact.then,astthatverysmallnumberfcasesinwhichthereisanactualcnflict,itwas decidedthatinallcaseswheretherulesfequityandlawwereincnflicttherulesfequity shuldprevail (Salt)v)Cper(1880)). Themvementfrmergerfequityintlawdiscuntedthepreccupatinwiththebeliefthat law and equity d nt cnflict, that equity is nting mre than a bdy f mre enlightened principles f cnduct which culd be smthly mrtised int the cmmn law there is a cnflict between them. A judgment f cmmn law creates rights in the plaintiff. A decree in equity, perating in persnam impses duties upn the defendant. Frm this fundamental difference, cnflict results law and equity cannt be blended r hmgenised fr they are antitheses.thenestrivesfrpredictabilityandtreatscasesasbelngingtageneralisedtype, thetherstrivesfrindividualjusticeandtreatscasesasbeingunique.eachhasafunctint perfrm which requires freedm t act upn the ther in1905,deanpund,althugh uphlding the unified curt ntes examinatin f the current reprts will disclse fur tendencies in the amalgamated system: (1) legal rules superseding equitable rules in certain cases;equitablerulesrprtinsfthemdisappearing;equitableprinciplesbecminghardand fastandlegalintheapplicatin;(4)equitablerulesbecmingadptedinsuchwayastcnfuse insteadfsupplementthelegalrules. (Emmerglick,1945,USA).Are)these)fur)tendencies)(r) any)f)them))described)by)dean)pund)t)be)discerned)in)angleaustralian)case)law? Examplesinclude The awarding f exemplary damages in equity (Harris) v) Digital) Pulse) which ignrestheideathatequitydesntpunish 5

6 AnequitablecausefactinwithCLremedy(Redgrave)v)Heard) Prcedural*fusin?* TheReprtftheJudicatureCmmissinessentiallysaidthatwewantthiscurttbea nemstpshp,yugtthecurtandtheycanprvideyuwiththeremedyatcl/equity asisnecessaryaccrdingtyurfacts.therefreessentiallyachievethesameutcmes, butjustchangetheprceduretgettthseutcmes. Berry$v$Berry[1929]2KB316 Cupleweremarriedbutseparated Enteredintadeedfseparatinandagreedthathewuldpaymaintenancetherin theamuntf216pundsperyear 8yearslatertheyagreedthalvethatamunt Thiswasmadebycntractandsupprtedbyvaluablecnsideratin CLrulefevidenceprirttheJudicatureAct variatinfacvenantin adeedhadtbecntainedinadeedtherwiseineffective Equityfcusednsubstance,ntfrmandtheagreementinsubstance wastvarythecvenantinthedeedtequitygavethateffect AftertheJudicatureAct wherethecnflictbetweenequity/clrulesfequityprevail(s 25ftheJudicatureAct);thusnlyneededtpay108pundsperannum ThesameresultwuldhavebeenachievedbefretheJAs shesuesatcl,prvesthe deed,hecan tprvethevariatininclcurt,shegetsacljudgmentbutthenhegest Chanceryfraninjunctin;ntenfrcedbecauseitisuncnscinable Zaccardi$v$Caunt[2008]NSWCA202 IfyuhadatimestipulatinatCL,equitywuldnlytreatthisas ftheessence nlyif thishasbeenstipulatedbythepartiesandthatisclear S25(7)ftheJudicatureActsaysapplytheequitablerule WipedawaytheCLrule ReasnfrdingthiswasbecausenwthattheCurtwasne,theCurtwuldneedt knwpreciselywhen time wuldstart Thishassmetimesbeendescribedas substantivefusin becauseitchangestherule andthis isspecifiedinthecaseat[87]u[100].hwever,ifit ssubstantivefusinitwuldbeminorasthe utcmeisntdifferentandprethejudicatureacts. Substantive*fusin?* Thestatutewasdesignedtachieveprceduralfusini.e.LrdDiplckheldinUnited)Scientific) Hldingsthatitwasnlyafusinfadministratin(andntsubstantivefusin).Butdesitals achievesubstantivefusin? I.e. fllwing the Judicature Acts, if there has been substantive fusin, if yur claim is purely equitable yu may get damages and nt just equitable cmpensatin? Or the mdificatin f principlesinnebranchfthejurisdictinbycnceptswhichareimprtedfrmthether?the fallacy hwever is cmmitted explicitly, cvertly and n ccasin with apparent inadvertence(meagher,gummwandlehane,2002). Clearthatpers25(11)ntintendedtsubstantivelyfuselaw/equity Intermsfsubstantivelaw,thepurpseftheJudicatureActswastleaveinplacethe settlementsthatwerealreadythere Statutesweremerelystreamlininghwyugttjudgmentattheend 6

7 MCC$Prceeds$Inc$v$Lehman$Brs$Internatinal$(Eurpe)[1998] Plaintiffbeneficiaryfatrustfshares Underthetrustthebeneficiaryentitledthaveallsharesdeliveredtit Ratherthandingthatthetrusteewrngfullypledgedthesharecertificatetdefendant ThedefendantwasaBFPFVWNfthelegalestateinthesharesfrmthetrusteewithut nticefanybreachftrustrclaimbytheplaintiff Theclaimculdntmaintainanactinincnversinagainstthedefendant EquitablewnercanntsueincnversinwhereTPhasequitablerights Mummery LJ maintained that the judicature Acts intended t achieve prcedural imprvements in the administratin f law and equity in all curts nt t transfrm equitableinterestsintlegalinterestsrchangetheeffectfthecl Walsh$v$Lnsdale(1882)21ChD,9CB Caseinvlvedagreementtleaseaweavingshedfr7years Inwriting,nfrmalleasegrantedbydeed(thereisjusttheagreementtleasethatis supprtedbycnsideratin) Thetenantwasallwedintpssessinandstartedpaymentfrentinarrears 3yearsafterthatlandlrdservedanticedemandingayear srentbepaidinadvance Thatdemandwaspermittedunderthecntract Thetenantdidn tpaytherentfrtwdaysandthelandlrdsughttdestrainfrnnu paymentfrent(destraintisaprcesswheretakethetenant schattelsandhldthem untiltherenthasbeenpaid)thrughthecmmnlaw Hwevertherewasnlegalleasehereasntcreatedbydeed TheCLhweversaidpreUJudicatureActs,ifyuwereinpssessinandpaying renttheclwuldimplyaleasefrmyearutuyear,hadtpayrentquarterlyand thebligatintpayrentwasnlyinarrears InequitypreUJudicatureActswuldtreatitasaseparateleasebecausefthe availabilityfspecificperfrmancewuldtreatitasexistingalready Jesselsaidcanrestrainfrrenthereeventhughequitablelease ThisisacnsequenceftheJudicatureActs Lkslikeafusinfallacy equitablelease,butapplyingtheclrules Apersnwhentersintpssessinflandunderaspecifically enfrceablecntractfraleaseisregardedbyacurthavingjurisdictin tenfrcethecntractasbeinginthesamepsitinasbetweenitself andthetherpartytthecntract,asiftheleasehadbeengranted Hwcanthecasebeunderstdinrthdxterms?Withutthefusinfallacyidea? Chan$v$Cresdn$Pty$Ltd(1989)168CLR242 CresdnagreedinwritingtleaselandtSbutthiswasneverregistered(neverlegal) SdefaultedandCresdntkactinagainstChanasaguarantr underthislease Thiswasunsuccessfulastherewasnregisteredlease,hencenenfrceableguarantee ThealternativeclaimfequitableleaseinlinewithWvLalsunsuccessfulasWvLnly givesanequitableleaseandthuswuldntbeagreement underthislease SmefusinfallaciesinthebksfrmNZ: Day$v$Mead[1987]2NZLR443 Cncernedbreachffiduciaryduty equitableclaimfrequitablecmpensatin CAreducedthecmpensatinawardnbasisfcntributryfault 7

8 ThisisapplyingaCLcncepttanequitableremedyinawaythatwuldn thave ccurredbefrethejudicatureacts Aquaculture$Crp$v$New$Zealand$Green$Mussel$C$Ltd$[190]3NZLR299 Awardfexemplarydamages(CLremedy)frbreachfcnfidence CkJsaystwdctrinesaremergedandthefullrangefremediesshuldbeavailable Frallpurpsesnwmaterial,equityandcmmnlawaremingledrmerged.Thepracticality fthematteristhatinthecircumstancesfthedealingsbetweenthepartiesthelawimpsesa dutyfcnfidence.fritsbreachafullrangefremediesshuldbeavailableasapprpriate,n matterwhethertheyriginatedincmmnlaw,equityrstatute. HweverlkagainattheNSWviewM Harris$v$Digital$Pulse$Pty$Ltd[2003]NSWCA10 Breachffiduciaryduty Canyugetexemplarydamagesfrbreachffiduciaryduty?InNSWn: WhattheNZCAcntemplatedintheAquaculture)Crpratincasewasafrm perhapsamild frm butafrmnnetheless ffusin.itwasfusininthesensefselectingaremedyfrm the cmmn law range f remedies which a curt f equity administering the law relating t equitablewrngsbefretheintrductinfajudicaturesystemwuldnthaveadministered whatevernecallstheprcess,itmustberecgnisedasaprcesshavinginvlvedadeliberate judiciallyuengineeredchangeinthelaw. Fusin*by*cnvergence*ver*time?* AndrewBurrws(2002)advancedthisargumentthatperhapsvertimetheCL principles/equitableprinciplesmightdevelptthepintyugetfusinbycnvergence IfthishappensitisntbywayftheJudicature)Acts(astheActssayifthereisacnflict betweenlawandequitythenequityprevailsswhywuldtheycnverge? JudicatureActsachieveprcedural,ntsubstantivefusin InHarris)v)Digital)PulseHeydnJacknwledgedthelawcandevelpvertime,buthe thughtthatequityhasntdevelpedsincethe19 th century ButMcGhee(2010)states tsubsumeequityintalargerschemefprivatelaw bligatinsandprpertyrightswuldrisklsinganexplicitethicalelementthathas stimulatedthedevelpmentfdctrinesinthepastandthatcanusefullycntinuetd sinthefuture Dn tlsesightfcnscienceubasedreasningthatunderpinsequity Frexampleprpertymeansdifferentthingsindifferentcntexts Remember:equitableprinciplespresuppsetheexistencefCLrights/remedies(cantakethe equitable dctrine away and CL makes sense but nt vice versa). Equity is intersticial it appearsintheintersteces(gaps),fitsinandarundthecmmnlawandmakesitmrejust. TheMaximsfEquity Nhardandfastdctrinerethemaxims,they guidethepsts abuthwequityperatess can ttakeitandsaythisgivesmetheanswerineverysinglecase. Maxims themselves can cnflict with eachther and if they d, the curt has t reslve the cnflictandfigureutwhattdasmustbethecasethatneisappliednly. 8

9 Equity regards as dne what ught t be dne Equity fllws thelaw He wh seeks equity must d equity He wh cmes t equity must cme with cleanhands Where the equities are equal the first intimeprevails Delay defeats equity Equity lks t intentin rather than frm Equity presumes equality Equity acts in persnam Walsh) v) Lnsdale: parties had agreed t grant a lease but nt yet actually dnethat,andbecausespecificperfrmancewasavailable,equitycnsiders yuthavednewhatyuughtthavedne(createalease). Equitydesn tdenythelegalpsitin itadptsitandsaysthisiswhatwill bedneinrespectfthelegalpsitin. Ifyuaskacurtfequityfrrelief,yumustyurselfbepreparedtd whatcnsciencerequiredfyu(frwardulking ifyuwantaremedy, actcnscinablyfrthereliefyuwant) Plaintiffinequityjurisdictinmustactcnscinablythemselves(mreabut whatyuhavedneinthepast).butthecnductwhichdisentitlesyuhast beseries,ntentirelyactinginbreachfapplicatin. Geltch)v)MacDnald[2007]NSWSC amerebreachfcntractisnt enughtdisentitleyutrelief Black) Uhlans) Inc) v) NSW) Crime) Cmmissin) [2002] NSWSC the uncnscinablecnductmustrelatetthereliefyu reseeking Cncernedamtrcycleclubwhichhadputmneytwards buyingaclubuhuse,bughtinthenamefneman Latertheclubarguedthatthehusewasheldbythewner ntrustfrclub Astheclubhadputupthepurchasemney;heldn resultingtrustfrclub,ntlegalwnerbeneficially NSWCrimeCmmissinsaidyucan targuefranequitable remedy(heldnresultingtrust)becauseyuhaveengagedin criminalcnductandthusyudnthavecleanhands Thisargumentwasrejectedbythecurt;andequitablerelief wasgrantedbecausethemisdemeanursdidntrelateinany waytwnershipftheclubhuse Camewithsufficientlycleanhandsinrespecttrelief Ifyuhavetwpartieswithintereststhefirstintimeprevails;butifthereis pstpning cnduct frm a prir wner the equities are nt equal and the subsequentwnerwillprevail. If yu dn t d anything abut yur equitable rights, equity may refuse t giveyuassistanceakintstatutrylimitatinrules. TheDctrinefLacheshldsifyuhaverightswhichhavebeenbreached andyuacquiesceinthebreachbydingnthingabutit,maybesufficient tmakeitunjustinthecircumstancesthatyugetrelief. I.e.ifyuaredeclaringatrustyudn tactuallyhavetusethewrd trust lkatyurintentintsetupthearrangement(paul)v)cnstance).nteas stated in Crin)v)Pattn, if a dnr has dne all that he can d (especially whentheinstrumentftransferisdeliveredtthednee)equitywillgive effectttheinstrumentratherthaninsistingnstrictcmpliance. Twpeplewithaninterestandcan tfigureutwhatthequantumis yu fallbackandequitywillpresumeequality. Waikat)Reginal)Airprt)Ltd)v)AttrneyEGeneral)f)NZ[2003]cnfirmsequity is a fall back prvisin when yu can t figure ut any ther way t d smething (i.e. if evidence is clear that there shuld be a 1/3 and 2/3 divisin,yushuldgiveeffecttthat). Cntinuesthaveimprtanceinrealcasesnwdays. Mareva injunctins/rders ifi msuingyu,yuhaveassetsi mwrried yu may dissipate befre I get my judgment, it is an rder frm the curt 9

10 Equity will nt assist a vlunteer freezingyurassets(untilthecaseisdispsedf).thisisevenifyu rein AustraliaandyuhaveassetsintheCayman;asthisisaninpersnamactin whichactsntheindividualandnttheassetsandsmakesmarevasmre pwerfulandcanapplywrldwide. If yu have given value s that yu re nt a vlunteer equity will nt nrmallystepintassistyu.equitydesntdestryyurpsitininthis instance,butitdesntaddanythingtyurrights. Crin$v$Pattn(1990)169CLR540 Reequityassistingavlunteer: Ofcurseitwuldbeamistaketsettmuchstrebythe maxim.likethermaximsfequity,itisntaspecificrulerprincipleflaw.itisasummary statementfabradthemewhichunderliesequitablecnceptsandprinciples. Shwsthatclearthatntaprecisestatementinallcircumstances QuestinwhethertenancyhadbeenseveredbefrePattndied MrsPattntriedttransferhersharetMrCrin hadthatseveredthejinttenancy betweenthepattns? ExecutedthememftransferinfavurfCrinandgiventhedcumentsther slicitrandntcrin s Shehadtldherslicitrtregisterbuthehadn tdneityet ButCrinwasavlunteertryingtgetprpertythrughgift,ntsale Friend$v$Brker[2009]HCA21 F&Benteredintajintventure Diditthrughcrpratevehicle ratherthanrunningitthemselves,theysetupa cmpanytrunbusinessandtheywerewnersfthecmpany TfundtheventureBrkerhimselfbrrwed$350KfrmSMK(TP)atahighratef interestf19.5% Hethenlentittthejintventurecmpany ThelanfrmSMKwassecuredbyamrtgageverMrBrker shmeandheals guaranteeditpersnally Bythetimefthetrialtheinteresthadrackedupandthedebtwedwasnt$1.35mill BrkersughtcntributinfrmFriendtpayhalffit TheHCArejectedthisandsaidthatBdidnthavetpayhalffthelan Appliedequitablemaxims: Equityfllwsthelaw desn tdenythelegalpsitin BwedmneytSMK;SMKcansueBrker,evenifinequityrderMr Friendtpaysmefitthat sk;ifhegetsanythingutffriendit sa cntributinthim;hestillwesmneytsmk Equity presumes equality between the parties swastherearightf cntributinneededfrmmrfriend? Because Mr Friend had nt brrwed the mney he did nt we a cmmn bligatin by Mr Brker; wned by Mr B alne as he had brrwed it himself and lent it t the jint venture s B was slely bligedtpayitbackatlawandeveninequitynbasisfrrequiringhim tcntributetthatamunt B culd sue the cmpany and say yu we me mney, but the cmpanyhadnmneyshedidn tsuethem Remembermaximsarentstrict:theyareflexible,theycnflict,andthecurtgestthe netheythinkwillachievethebestjustice/cnsciencembasedresultinthecase. 10