Respondent failing to pay rent to appellants — Appellants commencing proceedings — Respondent fabricating evidence to support claim for equitable relief — Respondent lacking “clean hands”
The appellants and the respondent company entered into negotiations for the lease of premises. The respondent took possession, commencing paying rent, and carried out some work to the premises. It subsequently ceased paying rent and the appellants commenced proceedings for possession and arrears of rent. The respondent counterclaimed for the restitution of moneys spent on renovating the property.
At first instance, the recorder upheld the counterclaim. The appellants appealed on the basis, inter alia, that in those proceedings the respondent had adduced fabricated evidence in support of its counterclaim.
Held: The appeal was allowed.
The recorder had accepted that the documents produced by the respondent had been fabricated. He had been wrong to excuse that fabrication, no matter what the reasons adduced. He had misdirected himself as to the manner in which equity arises. The question was not whether the right to equitable relief had been lost by reason of bad conduct, but rather, whether that equitable right had ever arisen given the respondent’s conduct. The respondent had come to equity without “clean hands” and should not have been granted equitable relief.
John Sharples (instructed by Berry Smith, of Bridgend) appeared for the appellants; the respondent appeared by its representative, Mr John Horrigan.
Vivienne Lane, barrister
