Equitable Remedies

Tutorial #1: Introduction. Exercises in answering problem questions.

Tutorial #2: The History of Equity.
(Here is an extract from a recent case in Singapore where the judge went through the development of equity. I also recommend reading Snell, 29th edition, pg 5-14.

Tutorial #3: Fusion.

Tutorial #4: Maxims of Equity. Here is the information we discussed in the tutorial.

Tutorial #5: Specific Performance. Here are discussion on question 1 and question 2 from the worksheet.

Tutorial #6: Specific Performance, question 2 and Rescission and Rectification. Here is a really nice article about rescission.

Tutorial #7: Injunctions. Here is some discussion about question 1 on restrictive covenants and injunctions.

Tutorial #8: Here is a discussion about American Cyanamid and the attitude of the Courts to it.

Tutorial #9: Here is a nice article about the Anton Piller Order. Note the following in answering questions about Anton Piller:

  1. American Cyanamid does not apply and a strong prima facie case must be shown. There must be a real danger that the defendant will destroy the material. You cannot just assume that he will do so merely because he has infringed the copyright, etc.
  2. In EMI v. Sarwar and Haidar, [1977] F.S.R. 146, the English Court of Appeal allowed a term to be added to the order which provided for discovery of the names and addresses of the defendant's suppliers and customers.
  3. In Rank Films v Video Distributors [1982] AC 380, the House of Lords reluctantly upheld the defendant's right to resist the APO by invoking his privilege against self-incrimination. Parliament in the UK and across the Caribbean immediately, in the new Supreme Court of Judicature Acts, revoked this privilege in copyright and passing-off cases, provided, however, that the evidence obtained could not be used in a criminal trial. There was some question as to whether the Act also applied to bootlegging (unauthorised recordings of live performances) since it did not mention this. In AT&T Istel v Tully [1993] AC 45 the Court extended the Statute to other categories by analogy, but only in cases where the Court could adequately protect the defendant, eg, where the DPP had agreed not to prosecute, or where risk of prosecution was small. See this article.

Here is a nice article about Mareva Injunctions. Note that there must be a real risk of the defendant moving items to another jurisdiction, eg, he has a home there, or the company is incorporated there, or he is selling his home in the local jurisdiction. Note also that the purpose of the injunction is to protect the fruits of the judgment where the defendant expects to be awarded damages at the final trial. The police cannot use a Mareva to freeze accounts because these are not the fruits of the judgment. Finally, pay attention to Z Ltd v A-Z and AA-LL [1982] QB 558, which discusses the obligations of banks and other third parties.

Tutorial #10: Here are some notes on Constructive Trusts. You may also like to read the Trinidadian case of Plato v Taylor available on the www.ttlawcourts.org website. Here is an article about 'detriment' in the UK.