Fusion Fallacy
Equity Essay
1. Introduction
Two jurisdictions of law exist in Australia: equity and common law. ‘Equity is ‘the body of law developed by the Court of Chancery in England before 1873. Its justification was that it corrected, supplemented and amended the common law. It softened and modified many of the injustices at common law, and provided remedies where, at law, they were either inadequate or non-existent.’[1] Common law is ‘the unwritten law derived from the traditional law of England as developed by judicial precedence, interpretation, expansion and modification.’[2] The complete fusion of these jurisdictions has not yet occurred. The two “streams” of jurisdiction have merged in some areas as the law has developed, but are technically still separate. This essay will prove this claim using the equitable doctrines of estoppel and fiduciary obligations and will then discuss remedies.
2. History of Equity
Prior to the enactment of the Judicature Act 1873, the administration of common law and equity was completely separated. The principles of equity developed in the Court of the Chancery where a ‘petitioner could seek relief from the harsh or unjust operation of the law’.[3] The Chancery Court was a court of conscience charged with ‘an extraordinary power to prevent the injustices and supply the deficiencies that were perceived in the operation of the Common Law’.[4] The disadvantage of this system was that courts of law refused to recognise equitable rights or interests. The Judicature Act 1873 was enacted in order to merge the administration of law and equity. The effect of the Act was the abolition of the old courts and the creation of a new High Court of Justice that combined the jurisdiction of the old courts.[5] The judicature system was implemented in WA by enacting in the Supreme Court Act 1880 (WA) provisions equivalent to the Act. These provisions are now located in sections 16(1), 24 and 25 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA).
3. What is the
1. Introduction
Two jurisdictions of law exist in Australia: equity and common law. ‘Equity is ‘the body of law developed by the Court of Chancery in England before 1873. Its justification was that it corrected, supplemented and amended the common law. It softened and modified many of the injustices at common law, and provided remedies where, at law, they were either inadequate or non-existent.’[1] Common law is ‘the unwritten law derived from the traditional law of England as developed by judicial precedence, interpretation, expansion and modification.’[2] The complete fusion of these jurisdictions has not yet occurred. The two “streams” of jurisdiction have merged in some areas as the law has developed, but are technically still separate. This essay will prove this claim using the equitable doctrines of estoppel and fiduciary obligations and will then discuss remedies.
2. History of Equity
Prior to the enactment of the Judicature Act 1873, the administration of common law and equity was completely separated. The principles of equity developed in the Court of the Chancery where a ‘petitioner could seek relief from the harsh or unjust operation of the law’.[3] The Chancery Court was a court of conscience charged with ‘an extraordinary power to prevent the injustices and supply the deficiencies that were perceived in the operation of the Common Law’.[4] The disadvantage of this system was that courts of law refused to recognise equitable rights or interests. The Judicature Act 1873 was enacted in order to merge the administration of law and equity. The effect of the Act was the abolition of the old courts and the creation of a new High Court of Justice that combined the jurisdiction of the old courts.[5] The judicature system was implemented in WA by enacting in the Supreme Court Act 1880 (WA) provisions equivalent to the Act. These provisions are now located in sections 16(1), 24 and 25 of the Supreme Court Act 1935 (WA).
3. What is the