Search Results

This chapter examines the clean hands doctrine, according to which a claimant who knocks on the court’s door with a hand tainted by illegality or immorality will not be given her day in court. Instead of listening to her potentially successful claim, Equity resorts to its characteristic ad hominem, flexible, morally sensitive, and ex post approach to drive him/her away. The doctrine, despite its effect on a vast number of disputes, is under-theorised and fraught with lack of clarity. The chapter first considers the sources of the considerable legal anxiety caused by the way this powerful gatekeeper operates, before discussing the underpinnings of the three traditional justifications for keeping the clean hands gatekeeper in place: coherence, deterrence, and integrity. I then make the argument that by interpreting the integrity justification as a concept rooted in moral psychology, we can understand how the incommensurable justifications relate to each other and operate in judicial reasoning. I conclude by showing how the clean hands gatekeeper creates a ‘dirty hands’ type dilemma for judges and what they can do about it.

The chapter analyses variations on equity and related concepts that originate in equity. In particular, it studies equality, reasonableness, estoppel, acquiescence, good faith, unjust enrichment, the clean hands doctrine, abuse of rights, and proportionality. The chapter probes these concepts to demonstrate that equity lies deep in the international law mainstream and is applied even if we are not constantly aware of this. The chapter further aims to topple the myth that some forms of equity, notably contra legem equity, are only applied if the parties agree. It suggests that some such variations on equity or equitable principles, notably the clean hands doctrine and abuse of rights, can be seen as permissible applications of contra legem equity without the parties’ agreement – with the caveat that equity cannot truly exist contra legem.

In this concluding chapter I discuss some findings from the analysis of three of Equity’s fundamental doctrines we explored: fiduciary law, proprietary estoppel, and clean hands. I wish to highlight the traits they share and consider the relationship between the legal ideals of efficiency and Accountability Correspondence which they exemplify. Drawing up the strings of the last three chapters will also reveal how the courts use the category of conscionability to ensure that the value of the Rule of Law is sacrificed only in cases where it is necessary to maintain a healthy balance with Accountability Correspondence, in a way that also serves efficiency. Finally, I wish to show how the discussions of the specific doctrines support the argument that the fusion project as a general solution to the friction between law and Equity ought to be rejected.