(a) Which maxims of equity, if any, would be applicable in the following cases:

(i) Richard, Peter and Henry are the three co-owners of a joint business. They obtained from a bank
a joint loan of RM120,000.00 on the condition that they would be liable individually as well as
jointly to the bank to repay the loan amount. There was default in the repayment and the bank
forced Richard to pay RM120,000.00 all alone. Which maxim of equity could help Richard get
from Peter and Henry the sum of RM80,000.00?

I think the maxim would be applicable is “Equity follow the law”. In literal sense, equitable
right may not diminish the legal right as on basis the equity was adapted from the common law
itself unless there is distinction or good reason in order to deviate it from the law. Equity would
not necessarily bound by law if they think there is ambiguous thing with the common law rule.
For instance, a general common law rule that only parties to a contract will be bound by that
contract, must be observed by equity.

(ii) Paul owned the maximum 100 acres of rubber land allowed under the law. In order to circumvent
the law to acquire an additional 50 acres of land, Paul acquired the land and then transferred it to
his son to hold it as his nominee. When Paul wanted to sell this subsequently acquired 50 acres of
land, the son refused to give him the power of attorney. Paul filed a suit against his son. Could he
succeed? Discuss with reasons.

From my opinion the maxim that suitable is “Equity looks to the intent rather than the form”.
In above situation there’s element of trust even there is no words of trust been used during the
transfer of land from Paul to his son. It can be prove when Paul has given trust to his son by
nominee by transferring the rubber land. He may succeed the lawsuit. Thus, Equity will
regard a transaction as a mortgage even though it is not so described, if in
substance it appears that the property was transferred by way of security.
(ii) Paul owned the maximum 100 acres of rubber land allowed under the law. In order to
circumvent the law to acquire an additional 50 acres of land, Paul acquired the land and then
transferred it to his son to hold it as his nominee. When Paul wanted to sell this subsequently
acquired 50 acres of land, the son refused to give him the power of attorney. Paul filed a suit against
his son. Could he succeed? Discuss with reasons.