Description of the legal term Equity:
Equity in the context of British legal tradition refers to a set of legal principles that function to mitigate the rigidity and sometimes harsh outcomes of common law by focusing on fairness and justice. Originally developed in the Middle Ages, this body of law arose because the common law courts, with their strict procedures and reliance on precedent, were at times incapable of providing an adequate remedy for all wrongs. The Courts of Chancery, presided over by the Lord Chancellor, were thus established to provide justice based on principles of conscience and fairness.
Equity operates on maxims, which are general principles that provide guidance on how to achieve fairness in individual cases. One such maxim is “equity does not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy”, meaning that if the common law does not provide a remedy for a particular wrong, the equity courts can create one. Another maxim is “equity regards as done that which ought to be done”, demonstrating an intention to treat situations and transactions as the parties intended rather than strictly by the letter of the law if it results in unfairness.
One of the most significant contributions of equity is the creation of various flexible remedies that common law could not offer. These include injunctions (orders to do or refrain from doing something), specific performance (ordering a party to fulfill a contractual obligation), and the imposition of trusts (a legal mechanism by which one party holds and manages property for the benefit of another). Importantly, equitable remedies are discretionary, meaning the court may refuse them on various grounds, such as undue delay (laches) or unclean hands (if the party seeking relief is guilty of wrongdoing related to the subject of the claim).
Unlike common law, which largely deals with the adjudication of rights and the award of damages, equity is concerned with the broader concept of justice and acts “in personam”, that is, against a person, directing someone to act or to refrain from acting.
Equity has been a fundamental part of English law for centuries and remains integral today, even after the fusion of common law and equitable jurisdictions under the Judicature Acts of 1873-1875. These Acts brought common law and equity together within one court system, but crucially, they maintained the distinction between the body of principles of common law and equity, with the stipulation that where there is a conflict, equitable principles take precedence.
Legal context in which the term Equity may be used:
Consider the case of a homeowner, Alice, who enters into an agreement with a builder, Bob, to construct an extension on her house. After paying a substantial cash deposit, Alice finds that Bob is stalling and not carrying out the work as agreed. Under common law, Alice might only be entitled to receive damages equating to her financial loss—her returned deposit and perhaps compensation for the delay. However, these remedies might not be satisfactory for Alice if her primary desire is to have the extension built as planned.
This is where equity can intervene. Alice could approach a court seeking an injunction to prevent Bob from taking on new projects until he completes her work or a decree for specific performance forcing Bob to fulfill his contractual commitments. In evaluating Alice’s request, the court, applying principles of equity, would consider factors such as the clear terms of the contract, the upfront payment, and Alice’s reliance on Bob to complete the extension in a timely manner.
As another example, imagine someone, Cora, who is promised a piece of land by her relative Doug, in recognition of her years of care and support. Doug dies before formally transferring the land to Cora and his will does not mention this promise. At common law, Cora might have no claim because the legal formalities of transferring property were not observed. Yet, equity provides an avenue for relief through the principle of proprietary estoppel, which can stop Doug’s estate from denying Cora’s entitlement if it would be unconscionable to allow them to go back on the promise, considering Cora’s significant reliance on it.
The significance of these principles within the British legal system lies in their enduring capacity to ensure fairness and justice in a legal landscape that would otherwise be excessively rigid and at times unjust. The flexibility inherent in equitable doctrines enables courts to adapt legal outcomes to the specifics of a case, often providing those wronged with more suitable forms of relief than common law could. It underscores the fundamental belief that the law should serve morality and justice, not just the letter of the law.