Pickard v Sears
Pickard v Sears (1837) 7 Bing 606
Facts of the Case:
Pickard v Sears is a landmark case that deals with the principle of "clean hands" in equity.
The case involved a dispute over property.
Pickard, the plaintiff, sought equitable relief against Sears, the defendant.
Pickard had knowledge that the title to the property might not be entirely free from defect.
However, Sears had obtained possession of the property under suspicious circumstances (i.e., by fraud or deceit).
The question before the court was whether Pickard could obtain equitable relief (such as injunction or specific performance) despite his own questionable conduct or knowledge regarding the property title.
Legal Principle Established:
The case is famous for the statement of the “clean hands” doctrine, which says that:
“He who comes into equity must come with clean hands.”
In other words:
A party seeking equitable relief must themselves be acting fairly and honestly with respect to the matter at hand.
If the party seeking equity has acted unfairly, dishonestly, or with knowledge of wrongdoing related to the claim, the court may refuse to grant equitable relief.
Equity will not help a person who is guilty of “unclean hands” or who comes to court in bad faith.
Judgment:
The court held that Pickard was entitled to relief because Sears had obtained possession through fraud or wrongful means.
The fact that Pickard might not have a perfect legal title did not preclude him from obtaining equitable relief.
However, the court also emphasized that equity requires that the party seeking relief must not have engaged in misconduct related to the claim.
Since Pickard had acted fairly and was not responsible for the fraud, he was allowed to enforce his rights.
Thus, the ruling emphasized the balance equity maintains: relief is denied if the claimant has acted unfairly but granted if the other party is the wrongdoer.
Importance of the Case:
Clean Hands Doctrine: Pickard v Sears is one of the earliest cases clearly articulating the principle that equitable remedies are discretionary and depend on the conduct of the claimant.
It reinforced that equity is not an automatic remedy and that courts will look at the fairness of both parties.
The decision is foundational for later trust and property law cases where equity plays a role.
It remains a guiding precedent for courts deciding whether to grant injunctions, specific performance, or other equitable remedies.
Related Case Law:
D & C Builders Ltd v Rees (1966)
Reinforces that a party with “unclean hands” cannot claim equitable relief.
A claimant who uses undue pressure or acts unfairly can be denied equitable remedies.
Maxwell v. Stewart (1886)
Highlights the necessity of good faith by the claimant when seeking equitable relief.
Keating v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (2002)
Reiterated the principle that “clean hands” applies not only to the subject matter of the claim but also to the entire conduct of the party.
Lillicrap, Wassen and Co Ltd v Pilkington Bros Ltd (1985)
Affirmed the discretionary nature of equity and the clean hands doctrine.
Summary:
Pickard v Sears (1837) established the foundational clean hands doctrine in equity.
Courts will only grant equitable relief to those who act fairly and honestly.
Misconduct by the claimant related to the issue can bar them from relief.
The case balances legal rights with ethical conduct in dispute resolution.
RELATED Blog
0 comments