EQUITY FOLLOWS THE

LAW

LAW OF EQUITY AND TRUST

Respectfully submitted to: Submitted by:

Dr. Aditya Tomer Arjunveer Khanna
Faculty of LoTE, A11911112075
Amity Law School, Centre-II B.A.LLB (H)
INTRODUCTION

The law of equity began in the court of chancery which was set up because a fair and
just remedy could not be given through common law as monetary compensation was
not suitable and sometimes a well deserving plaintiff was denied because the writs
where quite narrow and rigid. Courts were guided by the previous decisions and
that's how the twelve maxims were formulated. These maxims limit the granting of
equitable remedies for those who have not acted in an equitable manner. The
decisions of the court of chancery and common law were constantly conflicting.

This rivalry was ended in The Earl of Oxfords case 1615. In which the king stated
Where common law and equity conflict equity should prevail'. The two courts are
now unified and the same judges give decisions out common law and equity.
The law relating to equity is largely built on precedent. The rules have been built
upon by previous situations which they have dealt with. Although there has been a lot
of disagreement about changing laws and adding to the law of equity, the rules that
have been accepted by proceeding judges became precedent and are now known as
maxims and are used as guidelines by the court.

I agree with the statement by Denning as equity is born from the interpretation of
judges and there problem solving abilities. There are a lot of different rules regarding
equity that have all been created through precedent. It is my opinion that although
Equity dates back hundreds of years and the law is still just as relevant. There are
alterations to the law as recent as the 1975 Eves v. Eves case. I am of the opinion that
as long as there are judges to create precedent there can be new law created in equity.

THE MAXIM: EQUITY FOLLOWS THE LAW:

Courts will firstly apply common law and if this is not fair then an equitable remedy
will be provided. This maxim sets out that equity is not in place to overrule
judgements in common law but rather to make sure that parties don't suffer an
injustice.
 This maxim means that equity respects the law. Accordingly equity will refrain itself from
unnecessarily overriding or replacing the law instead it will try to uphold the law as much as
possible.
This maxim is demonstrated largely and illustrated by the many instances in which equity has
adopted the same position as the law. By upholding the statutory provision of time frames for
the institution of cause of action,equity is simply following the law

Secondly in Re Bostocks settlement(1912) and in Sexton v Horton, the courts have

confirmed that where the law has created an estate in land the courts will try to respect those
estates and if those estates have been created using certain technical terms then equity will
use those same terms that the law has used(same interpretation).

Even though equity follows the law. The words by the judge of the New York Supreme Court
in Graf V Hope Building Co. equity follows the law but not slavishly not always. its for
that reason that the court in the cases of Gibb V Guid and Hunter V Gibbon the courts
refused follow provisions of the law on time limitations.

Equity has no clash with law neither does it overide the provisions of law, nor is it the enemy
of law. It adopts and follows the basic rules of law. It is said that equity is not a body of
jurisprudence acting contrary to law but is rather a supplement to law. It is a well know
principle that equity follows the analogies of law, the equity does not come to destroy the law
but to fulfill it, to supplement it, to explain it. Equity respects every word of law.

Cowper V Cowper (1734), 2P WNS 720

The discretion of the court is to be governed by the rules of law and equity, which are not
oppose, but each, in turn, to be subservient to the other, this discretion, in some cases, follows
the law implicitly, in other assists it and advances the remedy; in other against it relieves
against the abuse, or allays the rigour of it but no case does it contradict or overturn the
grounds of principle thereof.

APPLICATION
 It has application in the following two aspects;

1. As to legal estates, rights and interest;

As regard to legal estates, rights and interests, equity was and is still is bound by the rules of
law and it has no discretion to deviate there from. Equity does not allow an unfair use to be
made of legal rights so equity follows the law in regard to the principle of primogeniture.
This principle is to the effect that the right of the eldest child, especially the eldest son, to
inherit the entire estate of one or both parents.
In Strickland v Aldrige(1804) it was held that the exclusion of the younger member of a
family from property according to the rule of primogeniture doesnt create any particular
circumstances entitling to a relief at equity, because the eldest son gets only what he is
entitled to get in law.

2. As to equittable rights and interest

In many cases equity acts by analogy to the rules of law in relation to equitable titles and
estates. Equitable estates are guided by the rules of decent as legal estate

IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF MAXIM

(i) Equity adopts and follows the rule of law in all cases applicable
(ii) Equity follows the analogy of law

EXCEPTIONS

(i) Where a rule of law did not specifically apply.

(ii) Where even by analogy the rule of law did not apply, equity formulated and applied it, own
rules

CONCLUSION

To conclude I can say that equity always follows the law in the sense of obeying it and
conforming to its general rules and policy whether contained in common law or statute law.
The rules of equity cannot override statute law. The rules of equity cannot override the
specific provisions of law.