Definite rules of equity capable of strict application but rather they are to be used as guidelines in appliying equitable principles.

1. Equity acts in personam- Refers to the fact that equit enforces its decisions by means of a personal order

against the defendant- Order to perform contract,observe the trust,refrain from doing some act by means

of an injunction- Means that it will exercise its power against persons in its jurisdiction regardless

whether it relates to a property which is situated abroad. - Penn v Baltimore- the conscience of the party was bound by this agreement and

being within the jurisdiction of this court Which acts in personam the court may properly decree it as an agreement

2. Equity follows the law- Equity may not depart the statute law nor does it refuse to follow common law

rules save in exceptional circumstances- Comes in only where the law is too technical to redress legal wrong- Punca klasik sdn bhd v abdul aziz- D registered caveats which by law should not in the first place be able to be

registered.P applied to remove the caveats but D argued that P is estopped from removing the caveat because they had prior knowledge of the existence of the caveats

- Not possible to estop an aggrieved party from removing the caveat even thay had knowledge, as the caveats themselves in law were invalid.-equitable principle of estoppel could not apply in the light of clear provision of the law.

3. He who seeks quity must do equity(plaintiff’s future conduct)- Plaintiff who seeks equitable relief must prepared to act fairly towards the

defendant- davis v duke of malborough” the principle of this court is not to give relief to those who will not do equity”

- Chappell v times newspaper- certain employees failed to get an injunction to restrain their dismissal where they refused to undertake not to become involved in strikes

4. He who comes to equity must come with clean hands- The formerlooks at previous conduct,the latter looks at future conduct- Application of this maxim will fail if there is the element of dishonesty on the part

of the plaintiff with regard to his previous conduct- Coatsworth v Johnson- a tenant cannot get specific performance of a contract for a

lease if he is already in breach of his obligations.- Argyll v agryll- the fact that the wife’s adultery had led to the divorce proceedings

was no ground for refusing her an injunction to restrain her husband from publishing confidential material.

5. Where the equities are equal the law prevails- Where there are two persons with competing rights to the same item of property

both possessing equitable right butone with equitable and legal right then the one with both right will prevail.

- Langan v lee cheng keat- - the lands situated in Penang were held on trust as marriage settlement. However,

the trust was never registered and the tittle deeds remained in the name of the owner. On the death of the owner, his administratix sold and conveyed the land to the Defendant and delivered to him the title deeds but without referring to the trust accidentally came across the marriage settlement. They filed a suit for possession of the property from the defendant.

- The court held that defendant was in possession of the land and the title deeds as a bona fide purchaser without notice of trust. His equity should prevail over that of beneficiary.

6. Where the equities are equal the first in time prevails- A prior equitable interest in land can only be defeated by a bona fidepurchaser of a

legal estate without notice- If the purchaser is bona fide and without notice then the equities are equal and the

legal estate prevails.- In the absence of a legal estate in the matter and the contest is among the equitable

estate only, the rule is that the person whose equity attached to the property first will be entitled to priority over other or others e.g., if A enters into a contract for the sale of his house with B and then with C, the interest of B and C both being equitable, B will have priority over C because his attached to the property first.

7. Delays defeats equity- Equity will not assist a plaintiff who has failed to assert his right with reasonable

time-the foundation for the equitable defence of laches- Hj Abdullah v abdul majid- P was barred from registering some land in his name which he said he purchased

from his brother in 1916.possession by virtue of power of attorney given to him by his brother who died in 1944 creates no right of ownership inland-palintiff had by his conduct barred himself from obtaining the relief he sought.

-8. EQUITY WILL NOT SUFFER A WRONG TO BE WITHOUT A REMEDY

Where there is a right there is a remedy. This idea is expressed in the Latin Maxim ubi jus ibi remedium. It means that no wrong should go unredressed if it is capable of being remedied by courts. This maxim indicates the width of the scope and the basis of on which the structure of equity rests. This maxim imports that where the common law confers a right, it gives also a remedy or right of action for interference with or infringement of that right.In Ashby v. White, wherein a qualified voter was not allowed to vote and who therefore sued the returning officer, it was held that if the law gives a man a right, he

must have a means to maintain it, and a remedy, if he is injured in the enjoyment of it.In cases where some document was with the defendant and it was necessary for the plaintiff to obtain its discovery or production, a recourse to the Chancery Courts had to be made for the Common Law becoming ‘wrongs without remedies’.

Distinction between maxim no. 3 and 4-

He who seeks equity must do equity He who comes into equity must come with clean hands

i) It is applicable when both the plaintiff and the defendant have claims of equitable relief against each other.

i) It is applicable when the defendant has no separate claim to relief and the plaintiff’s conduct is unfair.

ii) It exposes the condition subsequent to the relief sought.

ii) It is a condition precedent to seeking equitable relief.

iii) It refers to the plaintiff’s conduct as the court thinks it ought to be, after he comes to the court.

iii) It refers to the plaitiff’s conduct before he  approaches the court.

iv) The plaintiff has to mould his behavior according to the impositions by the court.

iv) If the plaintiff’s conduct is unfair, it would not entitle him to the relief sought.

v) The plaintiff has an option or a choice before him either to submit to the conditions put by the court, or to get out of the court.

v) The conduct of the plaintiff snatched his choice from him. His equitable right therefore neither be recognized nor enforced.

vi) This maxim looks to the future. vi) This maxim looks at the past.