Lecture One - Part Three

History of Equity Development

• Developed in the courts of chancery in the United Kingdom.

• Significant to understand the fusion fallacy in relation to equity and common law.

• Merger of administrative capacity but does not mean doctrinal merging.

  • Fusion fallacy: Not all principles or doctrines from common law can be taken to equity and vice versa.

Understanding Equity Through History

• Understanding equity requires a comprehension of its history, particularly its evolution alongside common law.

• Justice Coase highlights the aim to reduce rigid legal rules’ injustices and prevent misuse of conferred powers.

• Equity serves as a mechanism to enforce rights beyond common law, addressing perceived unfair outcomes.

• Justice Prescott’s remarks emphasize the lack of a satisfactory definition for equity, noting its unique development.

Court of Chancery

• Prior to 1875, equity was exercised distinctively by the Court of Chancery.

• Contextual understanding of how equity has developed alongside but not against common law.

• Historical context indicates a Roman and Christian influence leading to equity's need due to the inflexibility of common law.

• The common law system had narrow writs leading to unjust outcomes, catalyzing equity’s rise to provide necessary interventions.

Early Case Law and Jurisdiction

• Originating in the appeal to the king’s good grace, chancellors operated as representatives to address justice concerns.

• During the 14th century, equity became more systematic as a separate body of laws.

• Development of rules aimed to mitigate the strictness of common law.

• The Earl of Oxford's case (1615): Established the principle that equity will prevail in disputes against common law decisions.

• Equity began to ossify, resembling common law with its complexities by the late 18th century.

Fusion of Law and Jurisdiction

• 19th-century judicature acts merged equitable and common law courts to address administrative inefficiencies.

• Continuous debate regarding potential fusion of principles and doctrines still exists.

  • Fusion fallacy: Assumption that principles from each domain can be interchangeably applied.

Distinctive Nature of Equity

• Critical to maintain a clear understanding separating equity from common law, even with shared jurisdiction.

• Example of fusion fallacy: Misconception that equitable leases based on part performance carry the same rights as common law leases.

Remedies in Equity

• Remedies are a central part of equity, often seen as the determinants of equitable relief.

• Importance of flexibility and diversity of equitable remedies, distinguishing them from common law remedies.

  • Equitable remedies available may include specific performance, injunctions, and others that the common law does not provide.

• Understanding personal vs. proprietary remedies is crucial; proprietary remedies often have lasting security in property rights.

  • Proprietary interests can be preserved despite transfers of property unless affected by a bona fide purchaser.

Personal and Proprietary Remedies

• Personal remedies follow individuals, allowing claims on behalf of an individual.

• Proprietary remedies attach to property, potentially giving rights despite changes in ownership unless exceptions apply.

Exclusive vs. Auxiliary Remedies

• Distinction between remedies exclusive to equity and those that complement common law remedies.

• Importance of understanding these distinctions for applying appropriate remedies in equitable cases.

Conclusion

• The understanding of equity requires historical contextualization and awareness of its distinct features in comparison to common law.

• Developments in remedies and their philosophical underpinnings guide equitable relief and the flexibility required to meet justice.