## Introduction

Equity is a body of rules that sits alongside the common law to prevent unfair results. Where strict legal rights would produce a harsh outcome, equity supplies remedies and defences shaped by conscience and fairness. It asks not only what the law allows, but also what is fair in the circumstances.

Historically, equity developed through the Court of Chancery to correct the rigidity of common law. Today, the courts administer both systems together, but equitable principles and remedies remain distinct. Common examples include injunctions, specific performance, rescission, rectification, estoppel, constructive trusts and claims based on conscience (such as knowing receipt).

Two recurring themes run through equity:

- The person seeking an equitable remedy must act fairly (often summarised as “clean hands”).
- If a money award at common law is adequate, the court may refuse an equitable remedy.

This guide explains the core ideas, walks through key cases, and shows how to apply equity in contracts, land, trusts and third‑party liability.

## What You'll Learn

- How equity emerged and how it relates to common law
- The main equitable maxims and remedies (injunctions, specific performance, estoppel, rectification)
- How consideration rules meet promissory estoppel in contract variations and part‑payment cases
- How equity interacts with land registration, overriding interests and rectification under the LRA 2002
- Key trust principles on certainty of objects and fiduciary duties
- The test for knowing receipt and the debate on knowledge vs unconscionability
- Practical steps for advising on equitable claims and defences

## Core Concepts

### Where Equity Came From and How It Operates Today

- Origins: In medieval England, petitioners who could not get adequate relief from common law courts appealed to the Lord Chancellor. This produced a separate court (Chancery) and a body of rules aimed at fair dealing.
- Single system of courts: The Judicature Acts 1873–1875 combined the administration of law and equity. The principles remain separate; where they conflict, equity prevails.
- Personal focus: Equity often operates in personam (against the person) rather than directly against the property, though it can also create proprietary rights (for example, beneficial interests under a trust).

### Maxims and the Shape of Equitable Relief

Equity is guided by well‑known maxims. They are not rigid rules, but they steer the court’s discretion:

- Clean hands: The claimant’s conduct must be fair in relation to the claim.
- Delay defeats equity: Unreasonable delay (laches) may bar relief.
- Equity follows the law: Equity respects legal rights unless fairness demands a different outcome.
- Equity looks to intent rather than form: A focus on substance over technicalities.
- Equity will not act in vain: The court will not grant useless remedies.

Key remedies include:

- Injunctions (to restrain or compel conduct)
- Specific performance (to compel performance of a contract, often for land)
- Rescission (to set aside a transaction)
- Rectification (to correct a written instrument to reflect the true agreement)
- Estoppel (to prevent a party from going back on a clear promise or representation where reliance makes it unfair to do so)

Defences include:

- Laches (delay), acquiescence and clean hands
- Hardship and adequacy of damages at common law

### Equitable Interests, Notice and Priority

- How equitable interests arise: trusts (express, resulting, constructive), estoppel, agreements intended to be specifically enforceable.
- Priority between equitable interests usually follows “first in time”. A bona fide purchaser for value of a legal estate without notice of the equitable interest takes free of it.
- Registration overlay: In registered land, priorities are largely governed by the Land Registration Act 2002. Some unregistered rights (for example, certain occupiers’ rights) can bind as overriding interests. Equity still matters, especially where the register is wrong and rectification is sought.

## Key Examples or Case Studies

### Central London Property Trust v High Trees House [1947] KB 130

- Context: A landlord reduced rent during wartime; later sought full rent.
- Lesson: Promissory estoppel can prevent a party from insisting on strict rights if there was a clear promise, reliance, and it would be unfair to retract.
- Practical point: Estoppel is typically a shield, not a sword; it suspends rights for the period in question.

### Foakes v Beer [1884] and Williams v Roffey Bros [1991]; Re Selectmove [1995]

- Context: Consideration for contract variations. Performance of an existing duty is not good consideration for “more”, but practical benefit may count (Williams v Roffey) for promises to pay more. Courts declined to extend that to promises to accept less (Foakes; Re Selectmove).
- Lesson: There is tension between these lines of authority. Equity (promissory estoppel) can soften Foakes in part‑payment cases, but usually only defensively.
- Practical point: For certainty, document variations with clear consideration or a deed; if relying on estoppel, set out the promise and reliance clearly.

### Overriding Interests under LRA 2002; Wishart v Credit & Mercantile plc

- Context: Actual occupation can protect unregistered equitable interests (Sch 3 para 2 LRA 2002). Some judgments have used language about notice and disclosure.
- Lesson: Occupiers’ rights can bind purchasers even if not on the register, subject to limits (for example, if not obvious on a reasonable inspection and the purchaser had no actual knowledge).
- Practical point: Buyers and lenders should enquire about occupiers and look for signs of occupation.

### Rectification and Priority: Gold Harp Properties Ltd v MacLeod [2014]

- Context: Rectification of the register where an interest was wrongly removed.
- Lesson: Rectification can reinstate an interest with retrospective effect, altering priorities over interests created while the entry was missing.
- Practical point: When an entry looks wrong, act quickly. Priority may turn on whether the register is corrected and whether the current registered proprietor is in possession.

### Rectification and Occupation: Swift 1st Ltd v Chief Land Registrar [2015]

- Context: Whether the right to seek alteration/rectification can itself be an overriding interest if the claimant is in actual occupation.
- Lesson: The Court of Appeal accepted that it can in principle. This result presses against the LRA 2002’s scheme and remains debated.
- Practical point: Occupation can be a powerful hook for protecting equitable claims during rectification disputes.

### Trust Objects and Discretion: McPhail v Doulton [1971]; Re Barlow’s Will Trusts [1979]

- Context: Certainty of objects for discretionary trusts and gifts.
- Lesson: The “any given individual” test (McPhail v Doulton) requires conceptual clarity of the class. Vague terms like “friends” can fail (Re Barlow’s).
- Practical point: Define beneficiary classes in clear, workable terms; consider guidance letters to help trustees exercise discretion.

### Knowing Receipt: Barnes v Addy; BCCI v Akindele; Re Montagu’s Settlement Trusts

- Context: Liability of recipients of misapplied trust property.
- Lesson: Courts have used both knowledge categories (the Baden scale) and a single “unconscionability” test (Akindele). Re Montagu’s emphasised actual, conscious impropriety, rejecting a purely objective approach.
- Practical point: Recipients should scrutinise unusual payments and keep due diligence records to avoid constructive notice arguments.

## Practical Applications

Contracts and variations

- If you want a binding variation without fresh consideration, use a deed or include a genuine practical benefit (for promises to pay more). For part‑payments, rely on clear estoppel conditions (promise, reliance, fairness) and record them in writing.
- Use “no waiver” and reservation‑of‑rights clauses when offering temporary indulgences.
- When settling debts, document accords and satisfaction; avoid open‑ended promises that may invite estoppel claims.

Land transactions and secured lending

- Always check the register and conduct thorough pre‑contract enquiries. Ask who is in occupation and on what basis. Inspect the property carefully.
- To defeat beneficial interests behind a trust, ensure purchase monies or loan advances are paid to at least two trustees so that overreaching occurs.
- If the register appears wrong, consider promptly applying for alteration/rectification and indemnity. Assess whether the current proprietor is in possession, and whether any exception (fraud, lack of proper care, consent) applies.
- Keep a paper trail on enquiries about occupiers and disclosure. It can decide whether an interest binds you.

Trust drafting and administration

- For fixed trusts, ensure a complete list of beneficiaries can be made. For discretionary trusts, define the class conceptually clearly to satisfy the “any given individual” test.
- If beneficiaries are missing or unknown, consider a Benjamin order to permit distribution while protecting trustees.
- Adopt and follow conflict policies. Trustees and fiduciaries must avoid unauthorised profits and conflicts. Where gains arise, be prepared for account of profits and possible proprietary claims (notably after FHR European Ventures v Cedar Capital).

Recipient liability and risk controls

- Apply robust KYC/AML checks. Query unusual payment routes, inconsistent references, and pressure for speed.
- If you suspect a beneficial interest or breach of trust, pause and seek undertakings or court directions. Paying away in the face of warning signs risks constructive notice.
- In recovery actions, consider both personal claims (knowing receipt, unjust enrichment) and proprietary claims (tracing into substitutes) where available.

Equitable defences and case strategy

- Assess delay, acquiescence, misconduct and adequacy of damages before seeking equitable relief.
- Match the remedy to the problem: injunction for ongoing threats; specific performance for unique property; rectification for documentation mistakes; rescission for vitiated consent; estoppel to hold parties to clear promises where reliance makes retraction unfair.

## Summary Checklist

- Know how equity developed and that, on conflict, equity prevails over common law
- Apply key maxims: clean hands, no undue delay, substance over form
- Use the right equitable remedy: injunction, specific performance, rescission, rectification, estoppel
- Contracts: distinguish consideration rules (Foakes, Williams) and when promissory estoppel can suspend strict rights
- Land: test for actual occupation under Sch 3 para 2 LRA 2002; make full enquiries of occupiers
- Rectification: understand when alteration is barred, exceptions, and how priority can change (Gold Harp; Swift 1st)
- Trusts: three certainties; fixed vs discretionary objects; draft beneficiary classes clearly
- Fiduciary duties: no unauthorised profits or conflicts; be ready for account of profits and proprietary claims
- Knowing receipt: assess knowledge vs unconscionability and keep due diligence records
- Always consider equitable defences before issuing or resisting a claim

## Quick Reference

| Concept                    | Authority                          | Key Takeaway                                                   |
| -------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Equity vs common law       | Judicature Acts 1873–1875          | One court administers both; equity prevails on conflict        |
| Promissory estoppel        | High Trees; Collier v Wright       | Clear promise + reliance can suspend strict rights             |
| Part payment of a debt     | Foakes v Beer; Re Selectmove       | Promise to accept less needs consideration or estoppel         |
| Actual occupation          | LRA 2002 Sch 3 para 2              | Certain occupiers’ rights bind even if unregistered            |
| Rectification and priority | Gold Harp v MacLeod; Swift 1st     | Correction can alter priorities; occupation can protect        |
| Trust objects              | Knight v Knight; McPhail v Doulton | Fixed: complete list; Discretionary: any given individual test |
| Knowing receipt standard   | BCCI v Akindele; Re Montagu’s      | Debate between unconscionability and knowledge levels          |

Equity in Law: Definition, Principles, and Practical Applications