Interpretation of the laws of Equity and Trust in Bangladesh

Interpretation of the laws of equity and trust in Bangladesh:

There are some rules and Maxims which helps to interpret laws and ensure uniform practice throughout all legal system. Legal maxims promote conceptual clarity. Now I will discuss about some Maxim’s related to laws of equity and trust in Bangladesh.

1. Equity would not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy 

These maxim means that where there is a right, there is a remedy. This idea is also expressed in Latin Maxim,” ubi jus ibi remedium” Which means no wrong should go undressed if it is capable of being remedied by courts. But it is not applicable where moral right has been breached. It is only applicable in case of legal and equitable right.

We can see the application of this maxim in the case of “Ashby V. White.”  

Issue: Whether Ashby should be remedied?

Reasoning: According to the legal maxim equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy if the legal rights of any person has been breached he should be remedied, where there is right there is a remedy without a remedy the right is not appropriate. 

Conclusion: Has a legal right of a person has been breached he should be limited.

2: Equity follows the law:

This Maxim explains that equity is not a body of jurisprudence acting contrary to the law but rather a supplement to law. Maitland said, Equity came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it to supplement it. The equity court never claimed to supersede the common law of courts rather it grants remedy in those cases where 

1. The common law did not provide remedy.

2. Common law hate remittance but not sufficient.

3. Justice was not achieved due to defective rigid and formal procedure of common law.

Still therefore explained this maxim is slightly different way liquidity follows the law but not slavishly nor always.

We can see the application of this maxim in the case of Stickland Aldridge.

Issue: How could the law of equity apply here to give a fair judgment?

Reasoning: according to the Maxim Equity follows the law we know that equity doesn’t override law rather it supplements law equity come when justice was not achieved due to defective rigid and former procedure of common law. Equity follows the law but not slavishly and nor always.

Analysis: A father died leaving his sons and daughters. According to the rule of “Primogeniture” if their father dies without leaving a will, the eldest son is entitled to the whole property, which is injustice and unfair to the other siblings. But in the case, the eldest son promised to his father that his siblings won’t be deprived of getting property. 

Here equity will compel the elder son to fulfill his promise, but it cannot override the law.

4. He who seeks equity must do equity 

5. The maxi means that to obtain an equitable relief the plaintiff must himself be prepared to do equity it also means before granting any remedy.

The Court of equity shall examine whether the behavior of both the parties to the suite is equitable or not. There isn’t notion of equity that it is necessary for a person seeking relief from the Court of equity that he himself should exercise equity.

This makes me usually applies in cases of illegal loans consideration of mortgages notices of tourism mortgage with equal set as equity to settlement etc.

We can see the application of this maxim in transfer of poverty act section 51 and section 54 states that he who seeks equity must do equity. It explains the position of a person with a defective title who makes them who makes improvements on the land in his possession, believing that he is absolutely entitled to it but who in the rightful owner who has a better title evicts such a person from the property he’ll have to pay for the improvements as on the date of eviction on the principle that he did not stop the person in possession from making improvements. 

4. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands 

This makes him means that there should be fairness from both sides. Not only the defendant but also the plaintiff should act fairly. 

It is therefore said that, “he that had committed an iniquity shall not have equity.” This makes him relates to the past conduct of the parties and states that the person who comes to the court seeking equity must not have involved in an inequitable act himself in the past. This makes him is concerned with the past behavior of the plaintiff. By this makes them we can get the clear idea that one who has not acted equitably is not entitled to it and the doors of the equity court will be shut against him in the sense that the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf to acknowledge his right or to grant him any relief. 

We can see the application of this maxim in in Everet V. Williams case, which is also known as highwaymen case.

Issue: Whether the claim of the plaintiff was fair? Did the plaintiff acted fairly before seeking justice?

Reasoning: According to the legal maxim, “He who comes to equity must come with lean hands we know that the person who is seeking equity and Justice must not involve in any kind of illegal activities. Otherwise he’s not entitled to justice.

Analysis: In this present case we know that the person asking for equal share was involved in illegal activities. He is asking for equal share of the robbed money. Here we can see he did not come with clean hands which go against the maxim.

Conclusion: As the plaintiff did not come with green hands the court refused to grant him any relief.

6. Delay defeats equity 

This maxim is based on a Latin phrase, “Vigilantibus, non dormentibus, jura subvenient” Which means equity aids the vigilante and nor the indolent. If one sleeps on his own right his writes will sweep away from him also legal claims are barred by statutes of limitation.

Equity always assist those who are active in respect of their rights. Eight dozen assists those who are careless in response of their rights. Unreasonable delay in bringing forth a claim is known as latches. Rachel may also result in dismissal of the claims; thus a party must assert an action within a period of reasonable time. 

For Example: Once Bangladesh, India and Pakistan were together. So there are some situations that some people live in Bangladesh but their forefather used to live in India or Pakistan so in this case they inherit property in India or Pakistan. But it would not be applicable because of time limit. As so many years have passed and they were not concerned about it, so if they now claim for the property of their forefather the court would not get them any relief.

We can see the use of this maxim in “Chatrabhuj V. Hansukhram.” 

Issue: Whether the claim from the plaintiff was varied considering time limit?

Reasoning: According to the local maxim “Delay defeats equity” The court grant relief to those who are aware of their rights. If own sleeps on his own rights his rights will slip away from him. Legal claims are barred by time limit so the person comes to the court for his or her right must come within time limit.  

Analysis: in this present case we can see that the plaintiff allowed his land to be occupied by the defendant and this was acquiesced by the plaintiff even beyond the period of limitation. When the plaintiff claimed to recover his position the time limit was already expired. It shows that the plaintiff was not serious about his own rights.

Conclusion: As the plaintiff didn’t come to the court within time they meet the court didn’t grant him any relief.

7. Golden rule of interpretation 

The golden rule modifies the language of the words in a statue to successfully interpret the actual meaning of the legislation.

It takes into account the context in which the words are used so that justice can be done to the intention of the legislation. It is to be noted that the rule can be used only when the language of the statue is ambiguous or grammatically incorrect. Golden rule applies when there is any ambiguity, hardship, injustice, inequality, difficulties or inconvenience. Judges must be aware of the consequences while using this rule it must be used only where it is absolutely necessary. 

We can see the application of golden rule in the case of Bedford V. Bedford (1985).

Facts:

A son murdered his mother. She had not made a will. Under the statue setting law on “inheritance”, he was the sole owner and stood to inherit entire state.

Issue: Whether Golden Rule should be applied in this case to ensure justice?

Reasoning: We know that golden rule applies where there is possibility to injustice if the statutory law is strictly applied. It also applied where there is ambiguity. If there is any situation creates that if little rule is applied it will cause injustice to any parties than golden rule should be applied in such cases.

Analysis: In the above mentioned case we can see that the son murdered his mother. But in this case if statutory law is strictly applied here it will be injustice to the late mother. Instead of doing murder he will inherit the property which goes against the rule of equity. 

Conclusion: Golden rule should be applied in this case to ensure justice to the society and to the late mother.

So we can see that legal maxim and rule helps to interpret law in easy way. It helps to ensure justice in the society.