The Application of Maxims of Equity as Guidelines for Equity Jurisdiction in the Irish Property and Laws - Assignment Example

• Land Law Assignment

Introduction

Maxims of Equity refers to the general legal principles that govern the manner in which equity operates. In contrast to the common law, maxims of equity tend to illustrate the characteristics of equity as more flexible and a responsible approach to individual’s needs and inclined to take into account the worthiness and conduct of the parties involved. Nearly all the maxims are discretionary in nature and judges are free to choose whether to apply them or not. The development of the contemporary Irish land laws has been significantly influenced by equity and its principles as it is often widely seen as more flexible. Generally, under the Irish property and land laws, a number of maxims of equity have been applied to a number of cases based on precedent.

The history of the use of maxims of equity in property laws dates back to several centuries ago when they were first developed by the English Court of Chancery and other courts of the time to help in the administration of equity jurisdiction such as the law of trusts. The decision of common law and that of the court of chancery were often conflicting. The rivalry was put to an end in the ‘Earl of Oxfords case 1615 in which the King at the time stated that where equity and common law conflict, equity has to prevail. The use of maxims of equity in property laws has sometimes been treated with caution as the principles sometimes appear to be misleading. However, the maxims of equity has increasingly gained popularity over the centuries and today is frequently being cited by judges in their decision making. This paper critically discusses the application of maxims of equity as guidelines for equity jurisdiction in the contemporary Irish property and laws with particular focus on three main maxims of equity namely “equity acts in personam”, “equity shall not suffer a wrong without a remedy” and “He who seeks equity must practice equity.”

Equity shall not suffer a wrong without a remedy

The maxim of equity “Equity shall not suffer a wrong without a remedy” is one of the commonly used principles in Irish property and land laws. It means that a solution exists where there is a right. It is a restatement of a legal principle: Ubi Jus, Ibi remedium which suggests that equity will not allow challenges associated with the common law to prevent plaintiffs from obtaining a redress. In Irish law, development of the maxim was particularly motivated by the failure of common laws in providing effective remedy for violations of legal property rights. The maxim provides some form of flexibility in that it does not demand that equity must always provide a remedy for every case of injustice but provide a range of equitable remedies for various court cases. The maxim shows the basis and scope on which the equity structure rest. It asserts that in a situation where common law confers a right, it gives a right of action or remedy for infringement or interference of that particular right. All equity jurisprudence arises from this maxim. The idea of wrong has been refined over centuries to exclude matters that are deemed not actionable while at the same time issues that are considered actionable.

In the Republic of Ireland, a number of previous cases have used the maxim “Equity shall not suffer a wrong without a remedy”. However, the maxim currently cannot be applied on either to give a court of equity a jurisdiction beyond established principle or subvert established rules of law but is subordinate to positive institutions. For example, in the case of Bullen v O'Sullivan & Ors [2015], Mr. and Mrs. Bullen sought the intervention of the court in case involving an alleged fraud of land by O'Sullivan. The Irish high court based its judgments on Equity shall not suffer a wrong without a remedy” and gave a compromise settlement in which the plaintiff was entitled to get a redress.

Another important property law/equity case in which the maxim was applied is the case of L. v. L. [1992] 2 I.R. 77. The case was particularly involved a wife’s claim of equitable ownership of their family home on the basis of the contributions she made to the home through her work within the home. Using the maxim of equity “Equity shall not suffer a wrong without a remedy”, the Irish High Court the court acknowledged the important contribution that women make through domestic work in homes. However, it was held that domestic work cannot give rise equitable rights of property/home ownership

Similarly, in UK case of Ministry of Health v Simpson [1951] AC 251 involved the use of the maxim in a case of unjust enrichment in which various charities had wrongly paid money to a personal account for the purchase of land. It was held that the charities had a right of equitable remedies for the funds based on the maxim of “Equity shall not suffer a wrong without a remedy”. Generally, the principle that where an individual’s right is destroyed or invaded, the law offers a remedy for damages of its loss or to protect it. Furthermore, where an individual’s right is denied, the law enforces a treatment of action. Therefore, a power exists where there is a remedy.

In addition, the maxim regards exclusive rights and is capable of being enforced without occasioning an inconvenience or more significant detriment to the public. In a contract about land sell, common law may offer just damages which may not be an adequate relief and the victim could not sue for performance. The equity court can give the plaintiff such relief. Neither the commission of wrong nor breach of contract could be restrained by the injunction associated with the common law courts though the remedy was available in the equity courts. The maxim has also been applied to other cases concerning violation of rights, uses, and trust, where the defendant holds evidence, rights of trusteeship. However, in some cases, the maxim has limitations associated with negligence of the party, legal rights and where the jurisdiction of general court lies. Equity often fails to provide relief where both remedy and right is available under the universal laws. Additionally, equity shall not provide a remedy to a plaintiff whose negligence destroys evidence.

Equity acts in personam

The maxim “Equity acts in personam” relates to the methods of enforcing the decree of an equity court or judgment. Equity acts in personam embody the principle distinguishing the decree and process of chancery court as well as limiting their sanctions. It was originally the pride of the terror of the law judges and chancellors that chancery acted upon the conscious of a person. The Maxim particularly deals with properties and in many cases renders the property location as immaterial and the court can acquire jurisdiction over the individual or person of the defendant. Courts of equity or court of conscience operate mainly in personam binding the conscience of an individual and thereby bringing the conscience of a person under its sway. Its decrees were regarded as not merely a decision concerning the properties or rights in disputes but as decisions, orders, negatives and positives that are addressed to parties or individuals. Therefore, on one side the Chancellor exercised his judgment guided by his conscience, and on the other hand, the conscience of a person was sought to be bound. This maxim being descriptive of the procedures of an equity court covers a significant portion of its remedial and procedural action.

There are numerous cases in the Irish property and land laws in which the maxim has been applied. In the case of Lett v Lett [1906] 1 IR 618, a wife who had settled for a divorce in Ireland brought a subsequent divorce proceeding in Argentine because her husband had other property in Argentine. The Irish High Court upheld an injunction restraining her from instituting another proceeding in a foreign country based on the maxim of “Equity acts in personam”.

In comparison, the maxim was exercised in in English law in the case of Norris against Chambers (1861) 3 De GF & J 583. The principle revealed that an English court was in a position to adjudicate on matters related to titles of different properties such as land which were immovable. The article considered the main exception to the judgment where the court assumes adjudication in personam to enforce an equitable or contractual claim that concerns different properties that are immovable against a defendant subject related to the court's personal jurisdiction.

The maxim addressed two questions; how the English court can decide whether to assume jurisdiction associated with foreign land and on whether the English court can enforce or recognize the order of the international courts on issues affecting English land? As per the 1st question, the paper argues that the conservative approach of the English court is anachronistic and that the English law utilizes the lex fore approach exclusively to determine the existence of an obligation that the tribunal has a jurisdiction aimed at enforcing it. Instead, current conflicts in law principles require the court to apply the proper rules for substantive claims designed to determining a sufficient contractual or equitable existence of an obligation. On the 2nd question, the paper argues that despite the view that immovable property judgments are not enforceable in English states, foreign orders related to English land are in action entitled to subsequent action recognition in England by claimants considered successful. Lord Cottenham observed in the Ex parte Pollard (1840) that contracts which respect in countries out of this court’s jurisdiction can be enforced through proceedings in the personam not thereby interfering with the lex loci rei sitae. Based on where the immobile property is situated the law does not enable or permit the defendant to perform what the court might otherwise think is right. It will be considered useless and unjust to direct such an individual to carry out the act or in administering equities between parties that reside in the country and act upon their laws.

Equity acts in personam have long since ceased to be true. It reminds people that the chancery court’s jurisdiction was exercised against the individual in the defendant’s personam rather than in association with the property. In the case of the trust, the court failed to deprive the legal owner of the asset in question and transfer it to beneficiaries. But it could need the acknowledgment of the legal owner of the rights of the recipient while enforcing its decree through punishment including committal to prison for sequestration and contempt based on the asset of the defendant. But although the rights of the beneficiary were accurately stated, because of this, as iura in personam, they have failed to be exclusively so. The right of the recipient was recognized as one that was to be transferred by him to another party and transmitted on death. Ultimately, the legislature realized that the ius in personam identified by the equity court has evolved into jus in rem by enabling the courts to make orders vesting properties that were subject to a trust in any individual. It is true that there exist numerous equitable rights that operate in personam and are known as equities to distinguish them from estates proper and fair interests.

He who seeks equity must practice equity

The maxim of equity “He who seeks equity must practice equity” is considered one of the most vital in practical terms in the contemporary Irish property and land laws. It stressed a character of the equitable jurisdiction which helps differentiate it sharply from the universal laws. For instance, it's discretionary and flexible approach to the provision of relief. Concerning common law, an individual who is entitled to damages, the most features of common law remedies, cannot be forced to accept them subject to conditions. The typical example is the imposition of terms on injunction granting and most notably at the interlocutory stage where the court participates in preserving the status quo.

Pending trial and where it requires the defendant to offer personal undertaking to pay for damages sustained by the plaintiff when it emerges that the complainant was not entitled to the sought injunction. Additionally, an individual who seeks performance of a certain contract will be needed to perform his part of the contract as a granting relief. Examples of such cases can be witnessed in cases where an owner of the land is seeking to recover it from an individual who has no title to it but has spend capital on it to the knowledge of the proprietor. The court utilizing equitable principles may allow the title to the owner only if the owner is ready to reimburse the capital to the person. This maxim is also relevant where a court plans to set aside a transaction as a result of it being a result of a misrepresentation or a mistake as well as being procured as a result of undue influence. In such law cases, Fairness to the parties involved may require the use of terms as a condition of setting the transaction aside.

`A relevant example is the case of Cheese against Thomas, which was a case of undue influence. The complainant was an old man who paid money to the defendant. The defendant was his great nephew. The money was meant for the purchase of a house, which was to remain in the name of the defendant, but the plaintiff was to stay in it for the rest of his life and later passed to the defendant. The balance of the price as well as other expenses was funded through a loan that was secured by the properties’ mortgage.

The defendant failed to settle the installments on the mortgage thereby affecting the complainant’s occupation of the property. The plaintiff brought a hearing to have the transaction set aside as being a consequence of the undue influence of the defendant. He succeeded, but since the value of the property had fallen, the trial judge ordered the defendant and the plaintiff to bear the loss on the sale of the building in the same ratio as they had contributed towards the purchase of the ownership. The appeal court however upheld the conclusion with Nicholls revealing that if the transaction is set aside, then the plaintiff must return the amount he had received. The maxim is also relevant where the mortgagor restrains the mortgagee from selling a property. The mortgagor can be asked to settle the amount of the mortgage debt as well as other interest as a condition of obtaining relief. Equity law is a law of conscience and when an individual comes to such a court to seek relief he is considered to be willing and ready to recognize equal rights related to other parties as well as the complainant. Therefore, the defendant is at liberty to any form of relief against the complainant with the subject related to the suit.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the development of the contemporary Irish property and land laws has been significantly influenced by equity and its principles as it is often widely seen as more flexible. Under the Irish property and land laws, a number of maxims of equity have been applied to a number of cases based on precedent. Although the application of the maxims of equity in property laws has sometimes been treated with caution as the principles sometimes appear to be misleading, their use in the Irish property and land laws has increasingly gained popularity over the centuries. Today, the popular maxims of equity such as equity acts in personam”, “equity shall not suffer a wrong without a remedy” and “He who seeks equity must practice equity” are frequently being cited by judges in their decision making.