LAW MAXIM: EQUITY DOES NOT ACT IN VAIN

The legal maxim of equity "equity does not act in vain" means that when
a court is asked to grant an equitable remedy, it will only do so if the
remedy will actually achieve its intended purpose. In other words, equity
will not intervene unless it can make a practical difference in the
situation.
This maxim was illustrated in the case of Barnes v Addy (1874) LR 9
Ch App 244, where the court developed the principle of equitable
tracing. The case involved a fraud committed by a solicitor who had
received money from his clients for the purpose of investing it in
property. Instead, the solicitor used the money for his own other
purposes, and the clients sought to recover the money from a property
that the solicitor had purchased with his own funds.
The court held that the clients were entitled to trace the proceeds of their
money into the property, and that the property was held on trust for
them. However, the court also noted that the clients could not claim an
equitable interest in the property that was greater than their contribution
to its purchase price. This meant that if the value of the property had
increased since the purchase, the clients could only recover their original
investment plus any interest or profits that had been made from it.
The maxim was also applied in the case of Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd
v Parkside Homes Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 798. In that case, the claimant
sought an injunction to prevent the defendant from continuing to build
houses on land that the claimant owned. The defendant argued that the
claimant was not entitled to an injunction because it had suffered no loss
as a result of the building works. The court held that even if the claimant
had suffered no loss, it was entitled to an injunction because the building
works had caused a nuisance and interfered with the claimant's legal
rights.
Healey v Healey [1913] AC 394 - In this case, a husband was ordered to
pay maintenance to his wife following their separation. The husband
later offered to transfer a house to the wife as part of a property
settlement, but the wife rejected the offer. The husband then argued that
the court should discharge the maintenance order because the offer of
the house showed that the wife no longer needed the maintenance. The
House of Lords held that the offer of the house did not automatically
discharge the maintenance order, as the court had to consider whether
the transfer would provide a suitable alternative source of income for the
wife.
A-G v Times Newspapers Ltd [1992] 1 AC 191 - In this case, the
Attorney General sought an injunction to prevent a newspaper from
publishing leaked government documents. The newspaper argued that
the injunction would infringe its right to freedom of expression under the
European Convention on Human Rights. The House of Lords held that
the injunction was necessary to protect the confidentiality of government
information, but also noted that the court had to balance the competing
interests of freedom of expression and national security. The court's
decision reflected the principle that equitable remedies must be
proportionate and tailored to the particular circumstances of the case.
In conclusion, the maxim "equity does not act in vain" reflects the
principle that equity will only intervene when it can achieve a practical
result. This maxim has been applied in a range of cases, from tracing
claims to injunctions, and serves as a reminder that equitable remedies
must be tailored to the circumstances of each individual case.