Conflict Between Equity And The Common Law

Common law is formed on the basis that courts will make decisions based on past judgments (Letwin, 2011). Cases with similar circumstances will be ruled in the saw way. In most cases the common law will combine with statutory and constitutional law in order to make decisions. Common law bases on the fact that court cases will be primarily ruled on precedent (Aspen Publishers, 2010). The common law is crucial to understanding almost all important

Historically, common law emphasized the importance of judicial decisions rather than utilizing the structure of codes, legal rules, and statutes as courts do today. In the past, judges documented and issued their decisions which were later circulated from one court to another and became known as common law. In cases where parties disagreed, common law court would look at previous decisions made in related cases and incorporate those decisions into the current case (Siegel, et al., 2011). If similar disputes had been resolved in the previous case, the court would utilize the same perspective to resolve their current case. This became known as precedent and like common law, continues to be utilized in today’s court system (Siegel, et al., 2011).

Common law rights were guaranteed by the Magna Carta or Great Charter, which were affirmed in 1215 by King John. One did not have to be born into privilege to have common law rights, however, those who were had even more rights. There were times that the king and parliament disagreed as the “king claimed larger areas of power, leading to a bitter conflict between them.” according to Benedict (p. 1). The term “common law” means “…government protection against the encroachments of the rich and powerful,” according to Benedict (p. 2).

The three types of jurisdiction are In Rem which is the courts power to adjudicate rights of all persons with respects to a particular item of property. The second is In personum which is simply personal jurisdiction, this jurisdiction has power over the person of a particular defendant. Lastly there’s Quasi-in-Rem which is the court has power to determine whether particular individuals own specific property within the courts control. Courts can adjudicate disputes other than ownership based upon the presence of the defendant’s property in the

Modern day common law is adjudicated similarly with it being judged according to available statutes or acts enacted by legislative bodies and decisions made in previous cases after all evidence and facts are attained. The decisions of a court/judge are binding only in a particular jurisdiction (area of control or influence), and even within jurisdiction, some courts have more power than others. Due to this before a decision is made it must be accepted by higher courts (Statute and Common Law, 2014).

The issue of jurisdictional conflict between the civil courts and the Syariah courts has been standing unresolved for so many years. Notwithstanding the amendment made to Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution in 1988, the battle between the two courts remains unsettled. The root cause of this issue is the existence of a grey area between Article 121 (1) and Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution after the 1988 amendment.

To begin, common law originated in Medieval England in the time of King Henry II. The practice developed sending circuit judges from the King’s central court to travel throughout England to hear the various disputes. The aim of these courts (assizes) was to add consistency and fairness to the legal system. Alongside the traveling courts King Henry also established the jury system. Over time these judges recorded the information of each case they heard as well as the decisions and punishments that were ordered. This is known as case law or common law. This began a justice system that relied on the principle of stare decisis or “to stand by the decision”. This principle developed into the rule of precedent which was used to apply the previous decision to a case with similar circumstance. This system was used throughout the country and thus was known as common law. As the English began colonizing Canada they brought their legal systems with them, which greatly influenced today’s legal system.

Appellate Jurisdiction: consist of the judicial system having the authority to observe the evidence in the court setting to seek out fault. The goal/objective here is to acknowledge those individuals responsible for wrongdoings, mistakes, and failure to comply with the law. The Court of Appeal served final verdict in the case of Reed v. King. When analyzing the court of appeal, the court chooses to side with Martin, but for various reasons that can 't implement in the District Court. For example, this court evaluated the location of where the tournament was located and established that the site played a

Original jurisdiction refers to where the case starts. Appellate jurisdiction means that the court reviews the decision from the other court. Meaning, if you are prosecuted for a crime, the court where the trial would be held, has the original jurisdiction. Furthermore, the US Supreme Court generally is a court of an appellate jurisdiction, but it does have original jurisdiction for cases regarding ambassadors, or other public ministers. The court that reviews the decision of the trial from the lower court, would have appellate jurisdiction. Moreover, if you lose in court you can ask a higher court, an appellate court to consider whether or not your trial followed the law correctly. If you lose in the appellate court you can ask the highest court in the land which is the United States Supreme Court. Genuine jurisdiction is different entirely from special jurisdiction. General jurisdiction has the power of the court to hear only certain types of cases, and if the amount of controversy is below a certain amount, is more times than less subject to exceptions. Courts of the general jurisdiction are often called District Courts or Superior Courts. Jurisdiction may also be referred to the origin of the court's authority. A court may be designated either as a court of general jurisdiction or as a court of special jurisdiction. A court of general

Lower courts now have the ability to hear cases. This authority, known as jurisdiction, was granted to them by the Supreme Court. Jurisdiction also refers to the territory that a court can exercise its power. This factor also determines its other definition, the ability of a court to hear a case (Legal Information Institute, 2015). There are two components of jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and subject matter jurisdiction. Both elements are mandatory for a court to preside over a particular case. This essay defines the two elements giving the requirements of personal jurisdiction in a federal court and further explains the three different types of personal jurisdiction.

This essay will discuss the role of the magistrate and jury in the English and Welsh legal decision-making process. It will assess both the advantages and disadvantages of both mechanisms and give an opinion on the contribution they make in the process.

In a moment of our lives we have heard or experiment the word jurisdiction, whether in a legal problem, television, radio, newspaper or school. Jurisdiction is used in legal problems that means the right or power in a territory to interpret and apply the law. Can be defined as the “law to speak” to interpret and apply the law. Jurisdiction have many meanings but if someday we have a legal problem we can use it in our favor. “Jurisdiction refers to the lawful right of legislative, executive, or judicial branch to exercise official authority.”(Reid 6). Jurisdiction have power in certain territories these means if someone want to judge in a place that they don’t have jurisdiction they are broken the law. Jurisdiction is divided in certain areas

This essay will examine the doctrine of Judicial precedent that helps form the English Legal System. It will illustrate various views that have been raised by Judges and relating cases to the use of ‘Stare decisis’ when creating precedents. In addition it will discuss how the developments in the powers of the courts now also allow them to depart from these precedents to an extent.

Equity has been described as a ‘mysterious creature’ that lies distinctly alongside the common law. In considering the statement, there is an almost linear reversal in which the remedies in equity procure a type of right not necessarily available in the common law. This peculiar jurisdiction has created consistent controversy especially in regards to the fusion of the common law and equity. To understand further, this essay will consider the relationship between equity and the common law. The development of equity alongside the common law through its history and intention, and application in case law will be imperative in the discussion of the statement. In conjunction with an analysis of fusion, it will become apparent that equitable damages were enlivened, separate to, in unfair circumstances where no rights/damages existed within the common law. In trying to tread the murky waters of the distinction yet the procedural fusion of equity and common law, the contention of this essay becomes apparent. Effectively, this essay aims to highlight that the history, intention, application and fusion fallacies regarding equity, all which point to an assertion that rights in equity are indeed the product of its remedies. Whether they are merely ‘two streams of jurisdiction, though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do not mingle their waters’, is yet to be seen.

Critically assess the different sources and characteristics of the English Legal System. To what extents have external influences affected its development.