Common Law and Equity
- Created by: Ellie504
- Created on: 16-05-16 18:50
View mindmap
- Common Law and Equity
- History
- 1158-1184 - Henry II - Circuits, Best customs combined into one common law.
- 1066 - William I - Curia Regis - Use of Customs
- 1215 - Provisions of Oxford Case - no new writs allowed.
- Problems with the common law
- Too focused on tradition and on formalities.
- Damages the only remedy - not enough or sufficient for some crimes
- Some results were unfair and perverse
- EQUITY!
- Created in 1345 by the Lord Chancellor (otherwise known as the Keeper of the King's Conscience)
- Made its judgements based on equity = fairness.
- Earl of Oxford's Case - 1615 - Established that where equity and common law come into conflict, equity will always prevail.
- S.25 Judicature Act 1873 - Reaffirmed the principle from the Earl of Oxford's case.
- Created in 1345 by the Lord Chancellor (otherwise known as the Keeper of the King's Conscience)
- Equitable Maxims
- Delay defeats equity
- Leaf v International Galleries
- Leaf had bought a fake picture without realising it till many years later. The gallery would have lost even more money due to the passage of time. Leaving a claim too long prevents equity from being able to help.
- Leaf v International Galleries
- He who comes to equity must come with clean hands
- D and C Builders v Rees
- Mr and Mrs Rees tried to use promissory estoppel to prevent the builders from suing them, but they themselves had acted unfairly upon knowing the Builders financial difficulty.
- D and C Builders v Rees
- There is no wrong without a remedy
- Eves v Eves
- Lord Denning - equity is not past child bearing age. New remedies can always be created if necessary.
- Eves v Eves
- Equity looks to the intention not the form
- Berry v Berry
- Mr and Mrs Berry tried to ammend a Deed with a contract. A deed can only be ammended by another Deed. The judge saw past this and approved the change regardless.
- Berry v Berry
- Modern Remedies
- Promissory Estoppel
- A promise cannot be withdrawn if the other person has relied on it to their detriment
- Spice Girls LTD v Aprilla World Service
- A promise cannot be withdrawn if the other person has relied on it to their detriment
- Freezing Order
- Search Order
- Gives power to search premises and seize relevant evidence to the case without prior warning.
- Anton Pillar KG v Manufacturing Processes LTD (1975)
- Gives power to search premises and seize relevant evidence to the case without prior warning.
- Super Injunction
- Stops anyone publishing information about someone, cannot even be publicised that the super injunction exists.
- Ryan Giggs (2011)
- Stops anyone publishing information about someone, cannot even be publicised that the super injunction exists.
- Promissory Estoppel
- Delay defeats equity
- History
Comments
No comments have yet been made