Welcome to Law forums for and by law students!
Law forum, law students, law subjects

You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user. Sign up or
Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions.

Equitable maxims

Discussion in 'Other law subjects' started by Trevor L, Nov 22, 2011.

  1. Trevor L New law student

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    I am year one law student. I am quite confused on equitable maxims. Can anyone kindly illustrate some of them to me? Thx.
    Trevor L, Nov 22, 2011
    #1

  2. Trevor L New law student

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    The most confused maxim is that talked about clean hands, can anyoneshare his or her view to that?
    Trevor L, Nov 22, 2011
    #2

  3. KLaw New law student

    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    My 2p...

    The clean hands one is the hardest to get your head around. Read some stuff on the Duke and Duchess of Argyll and it should start to become clear.

    In a nutshell if you want a remedy in equity you need to not have contributed to the situation. If it's your fault your in a bind then tough luck. Its based on the idea that equity acts on the conscience, if you've got a clean conscience then you can get a remedy.

    The hard part with the maxim is that the clean hands has to relate to the remedy sought. So just because you're a dirty rotten scumbag in general does not mean you can't get a remedy in equity. To be stopped you need to have been dirty and rotten with regards to the matter before the court.

    For example. If you wanted to get an injunction to stop someone publishing a whole lot of private information in revenge for you having 42 affairs over the course of your marriage you could do so. The fact you were a lying cheating so-and-so would not stop equity intervening as your hands are clean WITH REGARDS TO THE REMEDY BEING SOUGHT. Make sense?
    KLaw, Apr 12, 2012
    #3

Share This Page