Even though Judicial Precedent had became a popular system, it was very expensive and only those who could afford it used it. The Royal Courts also used the system, they had great authority and could settle problems very quickly which was why the Royal Courts were used much more compared to local courts which take very long to settle disputes. All this became known as common law.
Look at two problems with William’s law.
William’s law was making himself available to any landholder who had a dispute or problem which is known as the King’s Justice. One problem with William’s law was it was rigid, which meant that Judges have to follow previous decisions even if they do not particularly agree with the decision. This could be unfair since the decision could lead the defendant to a consequence he or she did not deserve. It could also mean that the nothing can change the judge’s decision until a higher court overrules it.
Another problem with the law was the illogical distinctions, since previous decisions have to be followed in a similar case, if a case is similar but has some differences the judge will have to identify them in minutes, and then will have to look for a similar case to come up with a final decision.
Explain how equity developed and how it differed from the common law.
Equity is the law developed by the King’s Chancellor because many people were not happy about the law. This dissatisfaction made them to start complaining to the King. There was too many for the King to deal with so the King gave the responsibility to deal with them to the Chancellor. Whenever common law could not offer a solution the Chancellor would then make a decision on what he thought was fair. Unlike the common law system the Chancellor could make his decision instantly. Critics of the Chancellors approach argued that the instant decisions of the Chancellor could be unfair because they lacked uncertainty and it depended too much on his personal opinion. But over the years he built up a large number of rules which made things fair which is now called equity.
In common law had there were certain rules to follow whereas in equity could solve the problems common law had. The chancellor took his causes in a place called the Court of Chancery. After equity in place for a while, the lawyers that still used the common law rules were arguing back disagreeing with equity while the chancery lawyers were arguing back disagreeing with common law. The common lawyers said equity lacked a repetitive decision so anything could happen while the chancery lawyers said that common law is to inflexible and everything is set in stone. This was eventually settled in The Earl of Oxford’s Case (1615).
Consider the Earl of Oxford’s case and its importance
The Earl of Oxford’ case is a case where judgement of Chief Justice Coke was allegedly obtained by fraud. The Chancellor issued a common injunction out of the Chancery stopping the enforcement of the common law order. The two courts became locked in a stalemate; the matter was finally referred to the Attorney-General, Sir Francis Bacon. Sir Francis by authority of King James I, upheld the use of the common injunction and came to a conclusion of, when equity and common law collided, equity will prevail.
The Earl of Oxford’ case was a very important because it made the two systems collide and whichever system prevailed would mean it was superior to it. The two leaders of the new system could not make a decision between them, so they left the decision to the King. In the end the King choose equity, so this means whenever the two systems clash, equity will always be victorious.
Explain the effect of the Judicature Acts 1873-1875
The Judicature Acts 1873-1875 established the basis of the court structure we have today Judicature Acts combined the two laws together so it meant all courts can choose to use both laws if they wish to. They are not separate courts anymore. The Act in 1873 was an Act of Parliament by the Parliament of the UK. It recognized the English court system to establish the High Court and Court of Appeal; it also destroyed the judicial functions for the High of Lords. On the other hand the Gladstone Liberal government fell in 1874 before its entry into force and the succeeding Disraeli Tory government suspended the entry into the force of Act which meant the Acts were passed through 1874 and 1875. The judges seemed dissatisfied with the Acts so around 1883 they issued a fresh set of consolidated rules with some improvements.
Discuss the maxims of equity
The maxims of equity are what stop you from claiming the remedy you want. In common law there are no maxims stopping you whereas in equity there are.
One example of a maxim is ‘He who comes to equity must come with clean hands’. This means the claimant themselves must not be wrong in some sort of way otherwise they could not claim their remedy. One example of this is the case D&C Builders v Rees (1996). A small building firm did some work on Rees house. The bill came up to £732, Rees had already paid £250 of it, When the builders asked for the rest, Rees said the work wasn’t very good so instead would give £300. The builders desperately needed the money so they accepted the money due to financial problems Rees also knew about. The decision to accept the money would not normally be binding in the law of contract and afterwards the builders sued Reeds for the rest of the money. Rees claimed the court should apply the doctrine of equitable estoppel but Lord Denning refused to apply the doctrine because Rees took advantage of the builder’s financial problems so therefore Rees had not come to equity with ‘clean hands’
Another maxim is ‘Delay defeats equity’ meaning when a claimant delays in taking a defendant to court, equitable remedies may not be available. One case that illustrates this maxim is the case of Leaf v International Galleries (1950). The claimant purchased a painting of Salisbury Cathedral described by the seller as a real painting. Five years later the buyer found out it was fake and claimed the equitable remedy of recession but it was too late to claim it.
Lastly another example of a maxim is ‘He who seeks equity must do equity’ meaning whoever wants be treated fairly should act fair to others. A case example of this is the case Chappell v Times Newspapers Ltd (1975), newspaper employees were threatened to get fired if they did not stop striking, the employees then applied for an injunction to prevent their employers from carrying out the threats. The court said if they want the injunction they would have to stop striking. The strikers refused to stop striking so they were not granted their injunction.
Discuss the modern developments in equity
At the start of equity being introduced, it was flexible and was able to create the necessary rules if needed but by the middle of the 17th century the judges began to follow the decisions made by previous judges and by the end of the century, there was an attempt to reduce equity to a more fixed system. They continued to fix the rules of equity and by 1948, the Court of Appeal of Appeal emphasising in the case of Re Diplock, that any claim in equity-” … must be shown to have an ancestry founded in history and in the practice and precedents of the courts administering equity jurisdiction. It is not sufficient that, we may think that the justice of the present case requires it, we should invent such a jurisdiction for the first time’.
Lord Denning was a well known judge of the 20th century gave a lecture called ‘The Need for a New Equity’ in which he said in the Judicature Acts, Equity has lost its power. He was worried that judges were not able to adapt the law to changing conditions. He had personally been responsible for developing the new equitable, principle of promissory estoppel in the High Trees Case. This introduced an element of fairness to contract law. Estoppel is a rule of law preventing someone going back on a promise not to enforce their rights under a contract.
