Clean hands

This article is about a legal doctrine. For cleaning one's hands, see Hand washing. For other uses, see Clean hands (disambiguation).

Clean hands, sometimes called the clean hands doctrine, unclean hands doctrine, or dirty hands doctrine, ^[1] is an equitable defense in which the defendant argues that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain an equitable remedy because the plaintiff is acting unethically or has acted in bad faith with respect to the subject of the complaint—that is, with "unclean hands". The defendant has the burden of proof to show the plaintiff is not acting in good faith. The doctrine is often stated as "those seeking equity must do equity" or "equity must come with clean hands". This is a matter of protocol, characterised by A. P. Herbert in Uncommon Law by his fictional Judge Mildew saying (as Herbert says, "less elegantly"), "A dirty dog will not have justice by the court". ^[2]

A defendant's unclean hands can also be claimed and proven by the plaintiff to claim other equitable remedies and to prevent that defendant from asserting equitable affirmative defenses. ^{[3] [4]} In other words, 'unclean hands' can be used offensively by the plaintiff as well as defensively by the defendant. Historically, the doctrine of unclean hands can be traced as far back as the Fourth Lateran Council.^{[ citation needed ]}

"He who comes into equity must come with clean hands" is an equitable maxim in English law.

Purpose

The maxim prevents those who have acted improperly in some way relating to the matter at hand from seeking a remedy or relief. Essentially, anyone with 'unclean hands', someone who has in some way contributed to their own injury or loss, or has in some other way acted dishonourably relating to the matter will be prevented by a court from remedy or relief regardless of how the adversary has treated them. ^[5]

Applications

United States

Courts in the United States recognise this doctrine. The Supreme Court said that the bad conduct must have "immediate and necessary relation to the equity he seeks in the litigation". ^{[5] [6]} In US patent law, to deny equitable or legal relief to a patentee that has engaged in improper conduct, such as using the patent to extend monopoly power beyond the claims of the patent. ^[7]

For example, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals heard a case called Holy Family Catholic School v. Boley. Boley settled his workplace accident lawsuit for $40,000, with the condition that the money be spent on relevant medical expenses. The school terminated an account set up at a pharmacy in his name after it noticed that he misused the funds to buy products that were not related to his back injury. Boley sued to reopen the account. He succeeded in the trial court but the win was reversed on appeal because Boley violated the terms of the settlement. ^{[5] [8]}

In another example, Kendall-Jackson Winery of California sued its competitor, Gallo, in federal court for trademark infringement and unfair business practices. Its allegations that Gallo copied the label and the shape of the bottle in which the wine was sold fell flat. Gallo then sued Kendall-Jackson in state court for malicious prosecution and tortious interference, and also for encouraging its former director of marketing to breach the non-disclosure agreement he had with Gallo. During litigation in federal court, Kendall-Jackson discovered that Gallo was ordering or directing supermarket chains to place its similarly-looking but cheaper products next to Kendall-Jackson's, or provided free labour in exchange for its preferred placement of products, apparently to increase Gallo's sales at the expense of Kendall-Jackson. This conduct was illegal under California laws regarding alcohol sales, and so Gallo lost. ^[9]

International law

^[10]

See also

• In pari delicto
• Laches (equity)
• The pot calling the kettle black
• Tu quoque

References

1. "unclean hands doctrine definition". Businessdictionary.com. Archived from the original on 2020-09-21. Retrieved 2020-09-09.
2. Herbert, A. P. (1935). Uncommon Law (1st ed.). Methuen.
3. "Unclean Hands: Everything You Need to Know". UpCounsel. 2020-10-23. Retrieved 2022-11-04. ("Note that the plaintiff can also use the unclean hands defense. Specifically, the plaintiff could argue that the defendant isn't entitled to another type of defense due to his or her unclean hands")
4. "Unclean Hands Doctrine". Practical Law. 2022-09-15. Retrieved 2022-11-04. ("Although the unclean hands doctrine is typically an affirmative defense asserted by a defendant, it may also be asserted by a plaintiff in opposition to an equitable defense such as estoppel")
5. "clean hands doctrine". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2026-02-23.
6. "Keystone Driller Co. v. General Excavator Co.". Supreme Court of the United States. 1933 – via Justia.
7. See, e.g., Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co.
8. "Holy Family Catholic School v. Boley". Alabama Court of Civil Appeals . 2002 – via Justia.
9. "Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. Superior Court (E. & J. Gallo Winery)". California 5th District Court of Appeal . 1999.
10. Dumberry, Patrick (2020-08-10). "The Clean Hands Doctrine as a General Principle of International Law". The Journal of World Investment & Trade. 21 (4): 489–527. doi:10.1163/22119000-12340182. ISSN   1660-7112.