§ 1.3.1 Unclean Hands.

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

§ 1.3.1 Unclean Hands. An injunction is a decree in equity. State ex rel. Corbin v. Portland Cement Ass’n,142 Ariz. 421, 690 P.2d 140 (Ct. App. 1984) . Accordingly, equitable defenses are fully appropriate to bar injunctive relief. Specifically, where appropriate, the client’s history in the transaction should be examined to discover any possible hurdles to relief. Even if some are discovered, they may be offset by inequitable actions of the defendant.

Equitable relief may be denied to an individual coming before the court with unclean hands. Smith v. Neely,93 Ariz. 291, 380 P.2d 148 (1963); American Credit Bureau, Inc. v. Carter,11 Ariz. App. 145, 462 P.2d 838 (1969) ; Restatement (Second) of Torts § 940 (1979) . This means an injunction will not be granted to one who has been guilty of some unconscionable conduct in the transaction involved in the case. Wrongdoing sufficient to bar equitable relief must be substantial. For example, where residents had committed minor violations of restrictive covenants, they were not barred from later enjoining a major breach by another resident. Carter v. Conroy,25 Ariz. App. 434, 544 P.2d 258 (1976) .

In the same vein, a court will refuse relief to a party who seeks to use an injunction to gain an unconscionable advantage over his adversary or to unfairly affect the interests of the public. For instance, the court refused to enforce a...