ASSIGNMENT 1

Kabilan A/L Nadarajan 012022091726

NAME Nur Liyana Zahidah bt Ghazali MATRIC NO. 012022091066

Anussha A/P Jevarajan 012022091107

EQUITY & TRUST I

SUBJECT CODE WLW21303

GROUP N/A
PROGRAMME BLC

DATE OF
15 MARCH 2024
SUBMISSION

LECTURER’S HAFIZAH BINTI ABD LATIFF

This assignment is to achieve the Course Learning

Outcome:
CO1 – Identify the common law principles relating to
trust and the application of equitable doctrine,
equitable remedies and equitable maxim.

TOTAL MARKS:
 ASSIGNMENT 1
CHAPTER/TOPIC: EQUITABLE DOCTRINE AND MAXIMS

INSTRUCTIONS:
1. This is a group assignment (3 students per group).
2. Students are required to write a report on the topic given:

“THE RELEVANCY OF EQUITABLE DOCTRINES & MAXIM IN SERVING JUSTICE”

3. Students must do research based on articles/journals related to the issue (Minimum 3

articles).
4. The report must include the following points:
A) 5 POINTS that explain the relevancy
B) The argument from the articles to support the points
C) Your own opinion
D) References
5. The maximum pages for the report are 5 PAGES ONLY and required to be submitted together
with the rubric and instructions.
6. Submission date: 15 MARCH 2024

PROGRAM OUTCOME(S):

PO1 Practice knowledge of law for the purpose of further studies or work.

PO2 Use law and business communication skills in order to handle challenging situation.

PO3 Identify and solve problems using effective critical thinking skills in order to achieve practical
business decision making.

PO4 Demonstrate effective communication both in orally and writing.

PO5 Work effectively with peers and contribute positively to the community and relevant
stakeholders.

PO6 Demonstrate ethical and moral values as well as professionalism in daily practice.

PO7 Work independently as in individual to enhance ones knowledge to achieve continuous self-
improvement.

PO8 Utilise available resource in striving to accomplish desired goals.

PO9 Effectively demonstrate leadership responsibility in legal environment.

Introduction

Equitable doctrines and maxims are essential principles that guide the application of equity in
the justice system for the maintenance of fair and just outcomes. In simpler terms, they are
referred to as ‘rules of thumb’. The original purpose of doctrines and maxim’s role in the system
comes when common law remedies are found to be inadequate in granting equitable relief,
especially for legal matters. In cases of conflict between common law and equity, the law of
equity prevails. Equity isn't a complete body that can exist on its own but a component that aids
in between gaps/holes of the common law and presence leniency onto stringent laws where
needed.

This meant that equitable doctrines and maxims are what keeps the system from producing
injustice and oppression in conflicts of law and modernity. Additionally, It gives guidance to
courts in granting fair and reasonable, tailored outcomes by combining common law with
equitable remedies and emphasising appropriate actions by parties seeking relief. Judges
established legal maxims based on common law to justify their judgements and verdicts. Thus
maxims should be considered while analysing the numerous doctrines and standards of equity,
even if they are not hard laws that must be followed in all circumstances as they allow for a more
flexible and responsive approach.
 5 Points

1. Flexibility in Remedies: Under equitable theories, courts may grant remedies like
injunctions, specific performance, or rescission that are not permitted under the common
law. Due to the courts' ability to adjust remedies to the particulars of each case, justice is
always done. Because not all legal issues are the same and not every circumstance may
be resolved effectively by the same remedy, remedies must be flexible. Strict adherence
to the letter of the law can, in some cases, lead to one party being unjustly enriched at
the expense of another. Doctrines like constructive trusts address this by compelling a
party to hold property for the benefit of another, preventing such an inequitable
outcome. Judges and arbitrators must have the freedom to select the remedy that best
advances justice in each situation. This flexibility enables a more complex and fair
resolution of conflicts. In addition, if parties are confident that their agreement isn't
restricted by a rigid set of remedies but can be customised to their particular needs and
circumstances, they may be more willing to engage in settlement negotiations and
alternative dispute resolution methods.

2. Fairness and Individual Justice: Equitable maxims place a strong emphasis on justice,
conscience, and fairness. Articles may go over how these rules can be used to deal with
circumstances when a rigorous interpretation of the law might result in unfair
consequences. Maxim’s like “he who comes into equity must come with clean hands”
promotes fair dealing and discourages those who have acted improperly from seeking
equitable remedies, simultaneously fostering ethical behaviours in both businesses and
personal interactions. Justice demands objectivity from the jury, judges, and other legal
officials. They should make choices based on the law and the relevant facts and should
not allow bias or prejudice to affect them.

3. Mitigation of Harshness: By prohibiting unfair behaviour, correcting errors, and ensuring

that parties are not unfairly disadvantaged, equitable theories can lessen the severity of
the law. It is frequently used in a variety of legal situations, such as contract law and
criminal law, to make sure that the rule of law does not produce overly harsh or unjust
 outcomes. Contracts and agreements, while intended to be clear, can sometimes have
unforeseen consequences and this is where equitable doctrines and maxims such as
rectification, allow courts to intervene and correct mistake that reflects the agreements;
and the true intentions of the parties. The idea of reducing harshness serves the
overarching objective of ensuring justice and fairness in each of these legal circumstances.
It acknowledges that rigid and impermissible application of the law can occasionally result
in outcomes that are overly harsh or unfair, and it permits a more complex and acceptable
approach to legal remedies and penalties.

4. Adaptation to Modern Contexts: Societal norms and situations are constantly evolving.
Articles contend that by adjusting to novel and changing situations like technology, trade
and social challenges, equitable principles remain valid in contemporary legal systems as
equitable doctrines and maxims offer the court the necessary flexibility to adapt the laws
accordingly to appropriation in reaction to shifting views, demographic, and world
events. Legal maxims, such as "equity regards the intent, not the form," emphasize
achieving a fair outcome based on the underlying intent, even in instances where
technicalities could create an obstacle hence adaptation provided by equitable doctrines
and maxims aid the regularity of updating the legal system.

5. Supplementing Common Law: Equitable doctrines and maxims can supplement the
commonplace regulation via filling gaps in the criminal framework or offering alleviation
whilst common law treatments are insufficient. This is not to say that the laws are
inefficient. The common law's rigidity, at times, reliant on strict adherence to precedent,
is balanced by equitable doctrines. These doctrines empower courts with the discretion
to achieve just results in scenarios where existing legal principles might be obsolete,
inadequate, or overly harsh. For example, the doctrine of unclean hands ensures that a
party seeking equitable relief has acted equitably themselves. Additionally, there are
various levels of intricacy and involvement in the process of adding to common law
through legislation. This kind of supplementation enhances the overall system of justice
as discussed in some articles.
ARGUMENT FROM THE ARTICLES

In the articles, it is shown that equitable doctrines and maxims provide a flexible and adaptive
method of resolving legal conflicts is one of the most important grounds in their favour. In
contrast to common law, which is based on rigid rules and precedents, equity gives judges the
flexibility to consider the particulars of each case and deliver a fair and reasonable resolution.
This is especially crucial in situations when applying the law strictly might result in an unfair
conclusion. For example, in the case of "Walsh v. Lonsdale (1882)", the court upheld a lease
agreement that was not legally completed per the Statute of Frauds. This was done based on
equity's view that what is rightfully done is done. This example exemplifies how equity might step
in to avert injustice that could result from simply following the language of the law.

Furthermore, it explains that equitable doctrine and maxims enable courts to prevent the misuse
of legal technicalities by parties. In complex legal disputes, parties may use technicalities to their
advantage, resulting in an inequitable outcome. However, equitable principles, such as 'he who
seeks equity must do equity' and 'he who comes into equity must come with clean hands,' require
parties to act in good faith and with fairness. These maxims prevent parties from taking
advantage of the legal system and promote ethical behaviour in legal proceedings. An example
of Equitable Doctrine in action can be seen in the article "Understanding Equitable Remedies in
Contract Law" where the author discusses how courts may order specific performance or
injunctions to uphold fairness and prevent unjust enrichment in contractual disputes.

Additionally, equitable doctrine and maxims are essential in promoting social justice and
correcting societal wrongs. In many instances, traditional legal rules may not adequately address
issues of social injustice, such as discrimination or exploitation. However, equity law allows courts
to address these issues and provide remedies that promote fairness and equality. Another
example is the doctrine of promissory estoppel, which prevents a party from going back on a
promise that the other party has relied upon to their detriment. The article "Exploring Equity:
Understanding the Maxims of Equity" discusses key equitable maxims, such as "he who seeks
equity must do equity" and "delay defeats equity." It emphasizes the importance of fair and
ethical conduct in seeking equitable relief and the need for timely action to avoid undermining
justice and fairness.
Opinion

In our opinion, equitable doctrines and maxims will remain relevant for as long as the system
uproots the fundamentals of serving justice and maintaining the rights of individuals within the
society. Laws are proposed for governing a functioning society towards establishing standards
that maintain order and protection over liberties and rights. To do so, resolving cases and conflict
requires appropriate application of the rules which would have the opposite effect if laws were
enforced with stringency and out of accordance with time. Equitable doctrines and maxims
provide the balance between certainty and leniency in granting just and fair remedies. The
approach becomes practical and ethical when the need for tailored circumstances arises as it
allows the courts to determine adjustments accordingly depending on severity and modernity.
Granting equitable relief is discretionary and not arbitrary. Without it, laws and the enforcement
of them with the legal system would become too rigid, thus leading towards oppression and
regression.

Conclusion

In contrast to the common law's focus on rigid rules and precedent, equitable doctrines and
maxims offer a nuanced and fair approach to legal matters. Common law can feel inflexible in
certain situations, but equity considers the specific context of a case, including the conduct and
intent of the parties involved. This focus on fairness is reflected in maxims such as "equity aids
the vigilant, not the indolent," which discourages those who delay in seeking legal recourse.
Essentially, equitable doctrines empower courts to look beyond the technicalities of common law
and deliver a just resolution, even if it requires a degree of creativity. This ability to adapt to
unique situations makes equity a valuable tool for achieving fair and balanced outcomes in the
legal system.
References

(2020, October 15). EQUITY AS META-LAW. Yale Law Journal.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/papers/pdf/Smith_1051.pdf

Mohd Hussein. (2020, June 29). Reasoned elaboration of equitable maxims. Commonwealth Law
Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1080/03050718.2020.1782237

E. (2023, October 15). Unique Title: Understanding Equitable Remedies in Contract Law. Edina
Design. https://www.edinadesign.hu/unique-title-understanding-equitable-remedies-in-contract-
law/

Equitable Maxims and Principles. (n.d.). Studentvip.com. Retrieved March 14, 2024, from
https://s3.studentvip.com.au/notes/32388-sample.pdf?v=1563192918

Ehimony, B. (2020, November 23). Maxims of Equity: Everything you need to Know - The Jet
Lawyer. The Jet Lawyer. https://djetlawyer.com/maxims-of-equity-everything-you-need-to-
know/

(2012, January). Aspect of Equity in Latin Legal Maxims and the Nigerian Experience.
University of Ibadan, Nigeria.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314237799_Aspect_of_Equity_in_Latin_Legal_Maxi
ms_and_the_Nigerian_Experience

LL.M., Senior Lecturer, H. A. J. (n.d.). THE EQUITABLE DOCTRINE OF SATISFACTION.

In Law in the University of Melbourne. Law in the University of Melbourne. Retrieved March 1,
2024, from https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ResJud/1950/65.pdf

Dutta, S. (2006, April 10). Principles of Equity and Contracts. Principles of Equity and
Contracts by Shaswata Dutta :: SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.895862

The 20 Maxims of Equity. (2020, September 18). Mysite. https://www.vail-law.com/post/the-20-

maxims-of-equity

Mah, C. L. (2008, May 1). Equitable Doctrines and Maxims - LawNow Magazine. LawNow
Magazine. https://www.lawnow.org/equitable-doctrines-and-maxims/

McMahon, P. (n.d.). Maxims of Equity – McMahon Legal (Solicitors). Maxims of Equity –

McMahon Legal (Solicitors). https://mcmahonsolicitors.ie/maxims-of-equity/
 WRITTEN REPORT RUBRIC

SCORE
NEED
EXCELLENT GOOD MODERATE
CRITERIA IMPROVEMENT Total
(4) (3) (2)
(1)

Introduction
Introduction is somewhat attempts Introduction does not
creative and Introduction engages to engage the attempt to engage
Introduction engages the the audience. The audience but the the audience and the /4 X 5
5% audience. The main main idea of the main idea of the main idea of the
idea of the content is content is clear. content is somewhat speech is unclear.
unclear.
clear.

States the most of

Thoroughly and the main points and
Adequately states States few main
clearly states the details that focus on points and details /4 X 30
Content the main points and
main points and the topic. May that focus on the
details that are
30% precise details that include some topic, or information
accurately focuses
are accurately unnecessary does not relate to
on the topic. topic.
focused on the topic. information.

Student presents a Student provides

Student has some Student does not
comprehensive view good overview of the /4 X 35
Discussion of the topic, topic and support
view of the topic and present a
recommendation, comprehensive view
compelling their
but not well of the topic, and does
recommendations recommendations
35% with excellent with good reason
supported or argued not present a clear
for. discussion.
justification. and evidences.

Conclusion is clear,
concise and Lacks an adequate
Conclusion is good,
effective. Reflects provided and Conclusion is weak
conclusion. Main idea /4 X 10
Conclusion content and the main effective ending. and somewhat
was not restated.
Audience was unsure
idea in an original Restated the main unrelated to the
10% if the speech had
and interesting way. idea of the speech. main idea. ended.

Sources used (case Sources used (case Sources used (case Sources used (case
law, books,journals, law, books,journals, law, books,journals, law, books,journals,
magazines and magazines and magazines and magazines and /4 X 5
newspaper etc) are newspaper etc) are newspaper etc) are newspaper etc) are
well cited. Accurate well cited. There is a not really well cited poorly cited. Some
References use of summary, minor mistake and may lack materials are
5% paraphrase and inciting the sources variety. misquoted or out of
quotation. Source but overall the context.
material fits smoothly source material fits
into the student’s smoothly into the
own writing. student’s own
writing.

Minimal or no outline /4 X 15
Adequate evidence Fair evidence of a
Organisation Clearly organized in followed. No logical
of a logical sequence logical sequence of
into a logical organization, some
15% of information. Good information. Some
sequence. use of outline. digressions. Unclear,
use of an outline.
confusing.

Total Points: /100