Doctrine of Unclean Hands in Equity

The essay discusses the doctrine of unclean hands, a legal principle in equity law that prevents a party from seeking equitable relief if they have engaged in unethical or illegal conduct related to the issue at hand. It explains the historical context, key cases, and the implications of this doctrine on court decisions, emphasizing the importance of maintaining integrity within the legal system.

Running head.. EQUITY AND TRUST
Equity and Trust
Name of the student
Name of the University
Author

EQUITY AND TRUST
Introduction
Doctrine of unclean hands is a Maxims. Maxims were originally quoted down
in Latin. They are not any written down law, they are general rules that have been
enforced by the law as a general rule and has continued to run down through
generations amongst judges. 1The exact words of the maxim may vary from court to
court but the real meaning will always remain the same.
Maxim of equity are general rules that are governs in the way the court of
equity operates. They explain the nature of the remedies in relation to the common
law as a more easy way to fulfil the needs of the people to decide the parties conduct
and how worthy are they.
As mentioned in the doctrine of unclean hands it says that one who comes to
equity must come with clean hands. 2The purpose of the doctrine is to protect the
integrity of the court. It says that the court will not help those who have done wrong
themselves. Any one who seeks justice in court of law should be free from illegal or
unethical conduct. 3If the problem for which the person seeks aid from the court has
created the problem by their own, in that case the court will not help. The courts will
not a help anyone who itself is guilty of any improper conduct. The integrity of the
1 Akpotor, Sunny. "Corruption: The civil society and government." Philosophy and
Politics: Discource on Values, Politics, and Power in Africa (2015): 319.
2 Alba, Mariano de. "Drawing the line: addressing allegations of unclean hands in
investment arbitration." Braz. J. Int'l L. 12 (2015): 322.
3 Alsup, Judge William, Matthew Schruers, and Jonathan Band. "In the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit." (2017).

EQUITY AND TRUST
court is protected through this maxim. The court will not aid anyone who has done
something illegal or has started the problem that he or she has started. This illegal or
bad conduct may be direct or indirect in nature, in both the cases the person will be
considered liable.
For example:
Mr. A hired Mr. B as his agent to sell his products that he manufactures. Now
during the time of selling Mr. B promised his customers something which is not real
in nature. 4Mr A was aware about the situation, still keeps silent. After a while some
dispute arose on that particular sale with that particular customer.
In this situation though Mr A himself kept silent about the situation and is
directly not liable but he was aware about the situation and the agent was hired by him
so in that case he himself was liable and faulty and will not get any aid from the court
as he himself is not clean.
Body
The court will not grant relief 5in case where both the parties have tried to
dodge the law or have done anything which is illegal in nature or is considered to be a
bad act.
4 Bakshi, P. M. "09_Pleadings: Role and Significance." (2016).
5 Brainard, Daniel. "The Remains of Laches in Copyright Infringement Cases:
Implications of Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer." J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop.
L. 14 (2014): i.

EQUITY AND TRUST
Under the doctrine of unclean hands the defendant may question that the
plaintiff is not in liberty to get a6 relief as they have them themselves done something
wrong in relation to the case in particular that the plaintiff has filed for and he should
not be entitled to get any kind of remedy or aid in relation to that particular case. But
there should be ample proof that the plaintiff has done some misconduct in relation to
that particular case and its intention is not proper.
This type of doctrine is only7 available in relief which is only in form of
equity. The doctrine of unclean hands are not available in cases resulting in legal
damages that is to be exact it is not available in the cases which is in relation to
monetary awards. In case of such a doctrine it is kind of a positive defence in nature.
In the case of doctrine of unclean hands relies fully on the defendant. This means that
the defendant has to put up the allegation upon the plaintiff and it is upon the
defendant to come up with the proof and evidence that can prove such an allegation.
So we can say that the doctrine of unclean hand totally depends on the discretion of
the defendant. In such a doctrine the allegations at first has to be put forward by the
defendant and also has to be proved by the defendant.
There are some specific contracts where8 the doctrine of unclean hands can be
put up by the defendant. It can be performed in case of equitable form of relief.
6 Bray, Samuel L. "On Doctrines That Do Many Things." Browser Download This
Paper (2015).
7 Carter, J. W., Wayne Courtney, and Gregory Tolhurst. "AN ASSIMILATED
APPROACH TO DISCHARGE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT BY DELAY." The
Cambridge Law Journal 76.1 (2017): 63-86.
8 Dumberry, Patrick, and Gabrielle Dumas-Aubin. "The Doctrine of’ Clean Hands'
and the Inadmissibility of Claims by Investors Breaching International Human Rights
Law." (2014).

EQUITY AND TRUST
The types of contract claims where the doctrine of unclean hands can be put
up:
Specific performance
This is a type of contract which is specific in nature where both the parties
have gone into contract 9have mentioned all the details about how carry out the
contract. This type contract may include delivering of a consignment.
Contract rescission
In this type of contract it cancels the old10 contract and forms a new one. In
this type of contract the doctrine of unclean hands may prevail.
Contract reformation
If the contract is redefined or rewritten to make changes in order to rectify the
previous mistakes, in that case the doctrine of 11unclean hands may prevail.
9 Dumberry, Patrick. "State of Confusion: The Doctrine of ‘Clean Hands’ in
Investment Arbitration after the Yukos Award." The Journal of World Investment &
Trade 17.2 (2016): 229-259.
10 Education, Law, and Trade Magazines. "Lurie v. Wolin Case No. 1-13-0661, 2014
WL 1311977 (Ill. App. 1 Dist., March 31, 2014)." Gaming Law Review and
Economics 18.5 (2014): 490-493.
11 Feldman, Yuval, and Henry E. Smith. "Behavioural equity." Journal of Institutional
and Theoretical Economics JITE 170.1 (2014): 137-159.

EQUITY AND TRUST
In case of a contract mentioned if the plaintiff request the court of law to
provide relief under the above mentioned reforms in that case the defendant may
claim for doctrine of unclean hands. The doctrine of unclean hands is available for
bother the defendant and the plaintiff in case of contract. 12As the plaintiff may claim
that the defendant has performed something wrong and is not entitle to get an aid
from the court of law.
To prove the requirement of 13unclean hands may vary from cases it is not
required that both the plaintiff and the defendant has performed same kind of
misconduct. It may so happen that the plaintiff has performed misconduct and the
defendant was silent that time consciously knowing due to some personal interest, in
that case the defendant is equally liable for the misconduct. Knowingly staying silent
due to some personal interest is assumed that the person is also performed the same
misconduct and such a situation both of them the defendant and the plaintiff will not
get any aid from the court of law.
The doctrine of unclean hands has nothing to do with the general moral
character of the person. 14If the person’s moral character is not good, that won’t be
enough to prove that the person is performed and misconduct and doctrine of unclean
hands can be levied upon him.
12 Ghahramani, Salar. "Professors as Corporate Fiduciaries: Implications for Law,
Organizational Ethics, and Public Policy." Va. L. & Bus. Rev. 10 (2015): 237.
13 Hardy, Stephen. "Towards a Judicature Act, 2015." Amicus Curiae 2014.99 (2016):
4-9.
14 Harris, B. E. "Should insurance risk avoidance be reformed and would reform be of
a right of equitable rescission or a right sui generis?" Journal of Business Law 1
(2013): 23-38.

EQUITY AND TRUST
In some case where the plaintiff has committed a bad conduct in that case the
defendant may claim doctrine of15 unclean hands. The doctrine of unclean hands may
prevail under some situation the person that is it may be the defendant or the plaintiff
has failed to honour the contract agreement. In that case the doctrine may prevail. If
the plaintiff has acted dishonestly or has fraudulently this against the nature of the
contract, in that case the doctrine of unclean hands may prevail. If the plaintiff has
performed a crime that is in relation with the contract, in that case the doctrine of
unclean hands will prevail. If the plaintiff has forced the person to go into contract
with him and late comes to 16court for aid against that person for that same contract, in
that case the defendant may claim for doctrine of unclean hands. In case the contract
that the plaintiff has gone into has been achieved with violence or committing any
fraud, in that case the doctrine of unclean hands could be claimed from the side of the
defendant.
Taking example of a Famous case: John Everet Vs Joseph Williams
In the case that John Evert vs. Joseph Williams, were both highway robbers,
who entered into a partnership where they robbed highway travellers and split the loot
of their robberies. After the looted things were sold and divided, 17Evert thought that
15 Law, Mark. "‘He who comes to Equity need not do so with clean hands?’ illegality
and resulting trusts after Patel v Mirza, what should the approach be?" Trusts &
Trustees (2017).
16 Lemley, Mark. "The Economic Irrationality of the Patent Misuse Doctrine."
(2016).
17 Levine, David S. "School Boy's Tricks: Reasonable Cybersecurity and the Panic of
Law Creation." (2015).

EQUITY AND TRUST
he did not get the fair share of the looted amount and took Williams to the court. As
the court came to know about the act of both the parties that the disputed amount that
they were talking about was actually an amount of loot. The court dismissed the case
and issued warrant against both the parties declaring them guilty.
As the case tells us that in this situation where both the parties are guilty of
starting the problem that they want to resolve in court, they will not get any aid from
the side of the court. 18So in order to get any aid or resolution one needs to be free
from any wrongful act.
This means that those who seek justice should do justice.
As when a defendant appeals for the doctrine of “clean hands” to cancel the
charges that have been brought upon him then the 19court will see if the plaintiff has
performed any misconduct or not and if he has then it needs to be found whether the
misconduct is in relation to controversy for which the plaintiff has appealed for.
The court will see if the Plaintiff is engaged in a fraudulent or illegal
misconduct more or less in relation to the case or he has performed any misconduct at
18 Llamzon, Aloysius. "Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v The Russian
Federation 1: The State of the ‘Unclean Hands’ Doctrine in International Investment
Law: Yukos as both Omega and Alpha." ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law
Journal 30.2 (2015): 315-325.
19 Llamzon, Aloysius. "Yukos Universal Limited (Isle of Man) v The Russian
Federation 1: The State of the ‘Unclean Hands’ Doctrine in International Investment
Law: Yukos as both Omega and Alpha." ICSID Review-Foreign Investment Law
Journal 30.2 (2015): 315-325.

EQUITY AND TRUST
the end and ants that20 status quo should be resolved back to the previous situation. If
the desired relief and harm the interest of other in that case it can be denied by the
court.
The doctrine says that justice is not served by doing any harm to the third
party. So if ever there is a situation21 that by any decision if taken by the court can
harm someone in that case the decision will not stand in the court of law.
The difficult problem in the court of law is that when a contract between
parties become unenforceable due because of the relation of the particular contract to
the crime, in that case the decision is very satisfactory as court will not aid a trade
which may cause fraud to the public. 22The doctrine says that if a company that seeks
legal aid for any trade misconduct that it has faced and the company itself has
committed any crime against the public or third party in that case the court will not be
able to provide any aid to the parties who are seeking for the aid.
An extensive rule that may effect is to some point will restrict people from
illegal work. But this will happen when such prevention is demanded by the public for
their welfare, in that case as according to the above mentioned example where one
20 20 Mare, Steven. "He Who Comes into Court Must Not Come with Green Hands:
The Marijuana Industry's Ongoing Struggle with the Illegality and Unclean Hands
Doctrines." Hofstra L. Rev. 44 (2015): 1351.
21 Obeng-Odoom, Franklin. "Urban land policies in Ghana: A case of the emperor’s
new clothes?" The Review of Black Political Economy 41.2 (2014): 119-143.
22 O'Connell, Anne-Marie. "Justice and the defence of rights in England and Wales:
the case of Equity." Miroirs: Revue des civilisations anglophone, ibérique ET ibéro-
américaine 3/2016 (2016): 50-65.

EQUITY AND TRUST
person demands the looted amount. 23The plaintiff in that case was denied of any legal
aid due to the illegal act that he has performed in the past that has a relation to the
subject matter of the particular case. So it tells that in a situation such as this where
the court will not be able to perform full justice, in that case should restrain from
doing any justice at all.
The court has further mentioned that the party to the contract which is illegally
executed may withdraw from such contract for the benefits conferred. 24To this rule
there is an exception in case of the law in relation to the quasi contract which in effect
understands the ultimate policy in relation, to possible prevention to a crime which is
very serious in nature.
Wachter v Carlson 2012 BCSC 1390 is a good example of doctrine of unclean
hands
This case involves an aged couple who moved in a house with a boy and his
family
In this case that was filed by the parents of the defendant25 who was the female and
the wife. They entered in a deal where they mentioned that the defendant who was the
23 23 Okoro, Chiedozie. "Thought and Discipline: Orienting Engineering towards and
Eco-friendly Philosophy." (2014).
24 Petherbridge, Lee, Jason Rantanen, and R. Polk Wagner.
"Unenforceability." Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 70 (2013): 1751.
25 Rendleman, Doug. "The Triumph of Equity Revisited: The Stages of Equitable
Discretion." (2015).

EQUITY AND TRUST
husband will arrange a mortgage to finance a house where they will live together. The
house that is mentioned over here is to be bought in Okanagan with the mortgage of
the defendant who is the husband in this case. In this case the plaintiff and defendant
both lived together in the same house which was financed by the defendant. The
mortgage was produced by the defendant. As the defendant arranged the mortgage of
for buying the house both the parties came into a contract where they had a mutual
agreement that the mortgage will be provided by the defendant and rest all expenses
will be beard by the plaintiff.26 It so happened where the defendant arranged the
mortgage and the plaintiff did the bid for the house. From buying the house, paying
taxes, maintenance etc all were maintained by the plaintiff. The defendant did not pay
any expenses regarding the house. As the mortgage was in the name of the defendant
so the house was in the name of the defendant, whereas they went into a contract
mentioning a lease agreement between them for a period of 60 months or we can say
5 years. Apart form this lease agreement the plaintiff had no documents in support to
the house. Apart from this the plaintiff carried out all the expenses in relation to the
house. The rent agreement that they went into was of the same amount of that of the
amount of the mortgage that is paid by the plaintiff to the defendant, moreover the
plaintiff also paid the insurance and tax of the house. So by this we can understand
that the defendant did not pay any amount in regard to the house and also the rent
amount within these five years matches the amount of the mortgage so in real no
amount for the property was paid by the defendant. After the completion of the five
years or 60 months agreement the relation between them broke and as the ownership
26 Rogan, J., and Athanasian Creed. "This list contains only those sources found
particularly helpful. It does not include mention of newspapers, periodicals, novels, or
the various official and semi-official law reports. The place of a book’s publication is
given only when not London." The Victorian Church in Decline: Archbishop Tait and
the Church of England 1868-1882(2016): 328.

EQUITY AND TRUST
of the house belong in the name of the defendant so there was no document that can
support the ownership of the house.
The plaintiff filed a case in the court stating that the house in real sense
belongs to them as they have paid all the expenses in relation to the house. 27On the
other hand the defendant claims that the intention of the plaintiff was wrong and their
hands were not clean as according to the doctrine of unclean hands.
The court thought otherwise, it came to a conclusion that the plaintiff made all
the expenses in relation to the house from insurance, maintenance, building etc. every
cost except the mortgage which was also paid as a rent in those five years. The court
found that the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant was not exact landlord
tenant relationship. 28They both have equal interest upon the house and the ownership
was named after the defendant in order to acquire more mortgage amount as they
were not wealthy enough.
So in this case the defendant could not prove that there was any wrong
intention on the part of the plaintiff and29 that the doctrine of unclean hands should
prevail. So in that case the court mentioned that the plaintiff is the rightful owner of
the house.
27 Russell, David, and Toby Graham. " Clayton v Clayton in the New Zealand
Supreme Court: it’s hard to keep a good court down." Trusts & Trustees22.10 (2016):
1046-1048.
28 Russell, David, and Toby Graham. "G Clayton v Clayton in the New Zealand
Supreme Court: it’s hard to keep a good court down." Trusts & Trustees22.10 (2016):
1046-1048.
29 Sherwin, Emily L. "Equity and the Modern Mind." Browser Download This
Paper (2016).