Get free samples written by our Top-Notch subject experts for taking online Assignment Help services.
Perceived Defects In The Common Law System That Gave Rise To The Development Of Equity
The notion of equity was made to achieve an accurate result in certain specific conditions. There have been some harsh judgments in English common law for decades. The primary objective of equity would have been to alleviate the rigours of common law. Individuals have been condemned to unfairness because of several common law judgments. In common law, decisions are being made following the rules established either by the judge or the written law. As a result, they were everlasting, and courts remained obligated by them. However, the situation was radically diverse in terms of equity (Meacham 2019).
Individuals seemed to have the "right to peacefully protest the King personally if the verdict of the common law court seemed judged to be unjustifiable". Because King was preoccupied, he transferred some responsibilities to the Minister, who also is a politician. Because he was not constrained by either of the rigid legal regulations, he had considerable autonomy when making a choice. As a result, there seems to be no argument that his judgments were guided by his ethics. As mentioned earlier, fairness was primarily based on people. Therefore, justice helped them get fair results, because in most cases the legal system did not get good results when they saw unethical behaviour (Meacham2019).
Two sorts of instances were referred toward a Minister. The vast number of cases came into the later category. Minister, on the contrary, doesn't ever attempt to introduce a system of equity laws (Klimchuk et al., 2020He consistently rendered fair decisions on things presented to his notice. So because high courts and common law courts were separate bodies, things were accomplished in many ways. The chancery court operated intending to reach a fair judgment per their morality, whereas the common law courts obeyed the rigorous standards by which they would be obliged when making decisions (Klimchuk et al., 2020).
A brief explanation of equity is given by Lord Cowper in Lord Dudley v Lady Dudley , where fairness is a quality characterised by the severity, roughness, and sharpness of the rules can be softened and modified, not a component of the law.
In addition to explaining that equity is a separate system of law, you also emphasized how it moderates and softens common law. Equity also has its remedies since it is a separate system of law. A court can enjoin a party, order specific performance, award compensation, rescind the order, or order rectify. By contrast, there is only common law tracing and Damages in the common law (Klimchuk et al., 2020).
Because common law lacked sufficient punishments and an effective writ system, equity was primarily required to augment it. Moreover, equitable remedies were developed that targeted individuals rather than society as they were in common law. Nevertheless, if equity and common law disagreed, equity might use the general stay to preventing a common-law ruling from being executed. As a result, common law lawyers discussed this point. Since the common law decision is unfair and justice must ultimately win, it is appropriate to apply general remedies. Finally, good will win over evil. (Tafer et al., NA).
Walsh v Lonsdale  is an important case that highlights the distinction among contemporary equity and previous equity, and how fairness complemented common law when sufficient answers were lacking. Lonsdale agreed in written to provide a seven-year rent with rental payments quarterly in instalments, but Walsh must pay the entire year's rent beforehand if necessary. However, when Lonsdale sought the upfront fee, Walsh refused, and Lonsdale got upset. (Tafer et al., NA).
As a result, Walsh filed a tort proceeding. However, the act was unsuccessful. Walsh may claim illegal damages under common law and he is eligible. That way, Lonsdale wouldn't have received the answer. However, he could argue that "claiming a certain fulfilment of the agreement from the Prime Minister's Office and accepting the rights to the heritage building is the only thing that can be formed only from inequality." (Tafer et al., NA).
Lonsdale is then prepared to seek an injunction to prevent the common law judgement from being implemented. Then that would have happened if the accident took place before 1875. So, the very same situation occurred too. Therefore, in case, the court allowed a specific performance, even though it was not from some other court, though from a similar court. This ruling illustrates the influence of the Court Constitution on the court and its management. (Tafer et al., NA).
Rules Of Statutory Interpretation Concerning Significant Case Law
There are two main reasons why Statutes need to be interpreted: -
Legislative Language – A layman may find the legislative language difficult to interpret, so it may need to be interpreted.
Legislative Intent – An assimilation of the legislative intent says that the legislation is intended to assimilate (Dickson et al., 2022).
The Golden Rule: Interpretation Rules
The following are the rules that govern the interpretation of statutes:
The literal rules, mischief rules, Golden rules and target approaches are the four basic principles of legal interpretation.. Such guidelines will be examined in further detail in the remainder of such a paper. The paper will then evaluate the three factors of language as well as the assistance employed in conjunction with the laws in hopes of drawing a judgment on the author's perspective on the thoughts expressed in the preceding citation (Dickson et al., 2022).
Under literal standards, courts must interpret the law in an unambiguous, literal, and ordinary manner. The judiciary did not look into the motivations of the legislators. This regulation is frequently utilised since judges are not permitted to make the rule, yet courts that rigorously adhere to the law are not imprisoned for making the rule. (Dickson et al., 2022).
This regulation has advantages since it does not call into the issue. In this way, even if a law seems nonsensical, Parliament respects it, preserving the division of powers. Since the judge's involvement is limited, the decision is based on logic rather than emotion. As a result, it creates vulnerabilities when inconsistencies in literal interpretation emerge because it is incompetent at detecting constraints and intricacies in the English language. There have also been instances in which the Legislature used this provision to frustrate its main intent. The case law in Whiteley v. Chappell(1868) is an example(Brouillet et al., 2018).
Utilizing this rule could amount to a breach, undermine current societal trust in the system, and establish a precedent that Parliament would have to rectify.
Whenever a literal rule might result in stupidity or an annoyance, the Golden Rule is used. The court looks at whether the text of the legislation properly represents the Legislature's intent. According to Sigsworth , a boy assassinated his mom, she seemed to have no Will, and her son stands to acquire her whole wealth upon her demise. The legislation was plain, yet the child intended to profit from his wrongdoing, which was unfair (Brouillet et al., 2018). The benefits include that judgments are generally parallel with the legislator, and draft problems are remedied before unfavourable norms are set, so locking weaknesses. (Brouillet et al., 2018).
Applying basic logic within the scope of the law often leads to impartiality and regains public confidence in the judicial system. However, there is a real problem because the judge has the power to create the law as appropriate and to change or extend its interpretation. It violates the balance of power and judges will not be unfairly affected unless it is irrational. (Brouillet et al., 2018).
Mischeif Rules on the Interpretation of Loopholes (Authority) The Parliament aims to cover and apply rules that correct ambiguous legal issues. This rule is shown in Corkery V Carpenter  1KB102. So when defendant raced his cycle, he appeared being under the impact of alcohol. Section 12 of the Licensing Act of 1872 made it unlawful to drive while inebriated (Sales 2018). The applicant was convicted because the purpose of the law was to prohibit drunk driving on public roads. In a liberal society, the law adjusted the law and allowed it to eliminate its shortcomings. Nonetheless, courts are authorized to make laws, which breaches the balance of powers and allows for the creation of an infraction just after event. Judges may make decisions based under their own prejudices, which can lead to inequity. (Sales 2018).
The goal-oriented strategy Is designed to make sure that the rule serves its purpose by Parliament.  Pickstone v Freemans plc When reviewing EU law, AC 66 is an example of where it is used. Since EU law transcends all kinds of domestic laws, the UK would just have breached its existing contracts by enacting an Eu directive if the literal norm had been applied in this case (Sales 2018).
The Doctrine Of Judicial Precedent Is Now Obsolete As The Judiciary Does Not Have To Apply Previous Precedent
Precedent refers to the concept of stare decisis et non quieta movere, also known as 'stare decision, meaning "stand by the facts". "Binding precedent must be followed in the context of binding legal precedent." This could lead to erroneous results, which will be explored when discussing the pros and cons of setting a binding precedent. Before moving on to the pros and cons of applying the doctrine, let's first explain how case law works, including the hierarchy of courts (Garay 2019).
Case binding can be established if the facts of the new case are sufficiently similar to the facts of the previous case. Precedent doctrine and strict doctrine are both terms that describe the way in which every court within the judicial hierarchy is bound by the decisions of the High Court. The European Court of Justice is at the pinnacle of the legal system, following by the House of Lords. Since many legislation do not influence EU law, this is designated the Supreme Court. Most other court in the chain will be bound by the House of Lords' ruling. (Garay 2019).
The Court of Appeal is divided into two sections: criminal and civil, which is under the House of Lords. European Court of Justice & House of Lords rulings impose restrictions on this section. They are also constrained by their judgments, excluding the Criminal Division, which is more lenient when a matter affects a people's freedom. The Divisional Courts and the High Court, in contrast to the Court of Appeal and the Divisional Courts in the instance of the High Court, are constrained by judgments called the house of Lords and the European Court of Justice.
For example, Rv. In Caldwell , the defendant was released from the hotel where he was working. He also became intoxicated one night and burn down to the hotel, causing damage to his belongings. The visitor, on the other hand, stayed at the hotel. As a result, he was convicted with not just burning but also endangering person's existence intentionally. Considering intoxication was not deemed a negligent defence, Sir Diplock agreed to eliminate the clear measures. In Rv G ,As it was agreed that the guilty should be evaluated based on their age and knowledge, the assessment framework was restored. Two older lads, another 12 individuals, and a camp set up behind the shop with consent from the parent. They began burning papers in the hopes of setting it on fire. The blaze, however, started in an adjacent bin and later spread to the storefront. There were almost a million people who lost their lives as a result of the disaster. A boy noticed that they did not damage because they were caused when they spread in front of the fire. Because they do not intend to harm them, they need to consider their childhood. In their defence, objective tests have been used again so that the accused person knows the danger and the boy did not damage (Dhar Chakraborty 2021).
The prior judgment, Addie v Dumbreck , concluded that the possessor of land owed no responsibility to outsiders; instead, it was the parent's responsibility. Nevertheless, in the example of Pepper v Hart (above n.8), the House of Lords determined that judges can resort to Hansard in understanding the issue. They determined that the issue "included the law on the responsibility given to a child intruder" and that the stationmaster did nothing to protect the safety of the minor intruders while being aware of the consequences (Dhar Chakraborty 2021).
All judgments of the House of Reps are affiliated with the appellate court, which is lower in the judicial system than the lord's house. However, the appeal court tried to challenge this authority at Broome v Capell  and also in the following case of Miliangos V George Frank (Textile) Ltd. . The lord's home, on the other hand, rejected both attempts. This demonstrates that the Court's appeals to several other judiciary in the chain have no effect on the preceding court's thinking (Solum 2018).
Get Better Grades In Every Subject
Submit Your Assignments On Time
Trust Academic Experts Based in UK
Your Privacy is Our Topmost Concern
Copyright 2023 @ Rapid Assignment Help Services
offer valid for limited time only*