The Origin and Development of Equity Under The English Common Law Legal System - An Introduction
The Origin and Development of Equity Under The English Common Law Legal System - An Introduction
The Origin and Development of Equity Under The English Common Law Legal System - An Introduction
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
This paper discusses the origin and history of equity before the emergence of the English
Common Law legal system; it discusses the origin of the common law legal system and the
development of equity under it; it discusses the problems of common law and how these
problemswereovercome byequity;itdiscusseshowtherewasaconflictbetweentheCommon
LawCourtsandthe ChanceryCourtswhichwassettledwithequity’svictoryandthenthemerger
ofbothCourts centurieslater;itdiscussessomemaximsdevelopedbyequitywhicharestillvery
well in use today;
Equityreferstoasetofprinciples,asourceofjurisdiction,abodyofauthoritativedoctrinesand,
insomeplaces,aninstitutionofadjudicationdistinctfromlegalinstitutions.1Itisacharitableand
just principle that allows for the avoidance of the strict application of rigid law that would
administerinjusticeratherthanjusticetotheconcernedpartiesintheinstantcase.2Thisprinciple
hasexistedinvariousdifferentancientculturesinvariousdifferentterminologies.3 Equityinfact
hasitsoriginallthewaybacktotheancientCodeofHammurabi,whichwasalthoughknownfor
its strict adherence to principleof‘aneyeforaneyeandatoothforatooth’,therewerecertain
legalprovisionsincorporatedwithinwhichanalogouslyresembledequitablereliefs.4Theconcept
ofequityisfurtherfoundinvariousSumerian-Assyrio-Chaldeantabletssettingforththelawasit
existed a little later than the period of Hammurabi, particularly incorporating aprincipleofthe
equitable maxim, ‘he who comes to equity must comewithcleanhands’andalsotheequitable
right of an appeal to a higher Court.5 These Babylon codes would be preserved and further
developed by the Hebrews into the famous Mosaic Code who incorporated various moral
principles derived from their religious doctrine.6
EquityisalsopresentinAristotle’sjurisprudenceasepieikeiaandepiekisinhisvarioustreatises
asasourceofmoralvirtuewhichservesaspecificpurpose,whichisto‘rectify’thelaw.7Aristotle
was particularly concerned that the law was far too rigid and absolute in its administration of
justice, it was much too formal and thus needed certain exceptions for certain cases where the
absolute application of the law would prove to be an administration of injustice rather than
justice.8 Aristotlegivestheexampleofapersonbrushingaringonanotherpersoncomingwithin
the definitionofassaultasperthelaw,inwhichcase,ifheischargedwithassault,itwouldnot
be proper administration of justice, the judge should instead endeavour to see whether such a
case cancomewithincertainexceptionswherethestrictapplicationoflawneednotbeapplied.9
Hence, heisagainsttheliteralorstrictuniversalapplicationoflawwherethelawistakeneven
literally for even the smallest cases as is seen in the example discussed hereinabove.
EquitywasalsopresentwithinancientRomanlawasaequum/aequitas,initiallymeaninglevelor
equal.11 Itprovidesabasisfortheanalogicalextensionoflawgroundedinimaginative(iflimited)
empathy.12 Hence,equitywasusedasameansofmoderatingthelawandapplynaturaljusticeto
reach a fair and just conclusion to cases.13
UnderancientChinesejurisprudence,equityexistedundertheprincipleofqingli,whichrefersto
compassion.14 Similartoitswesterncounterpart,anypositiverulethatwasinconsistentwouldbe
rejected in favour of it.15 Under ancient Hindu Jurisprudence, equity can be traced within the
HindulawofDharma,whichhasmultipledefinitionswhichincludenaturallaw,morality,justice,
virtue, moral law, duty among others.16
UnderIslamicLaw,thereisadebateonwhetheristihsanistheIslamicequivalentofequity.17Itis
asubsidiarysourceofIslamiclawandaprinciplewhichwasdevelopedbytheHanafistoremove
therigidityoflawincertainsituations.18 Itisdesignedtomakeupthedefectinlawowingtoits
generality or to remove itsrigidity.19 AccordingtoAhmedHasan,therearesituationsinanever
evolvinghumansocietywhichcallsforadeparturefromthestrictapplicationofthelawandthus,
insuchacase,thejuristshouldbeallowedleewaytodepartfromtheestablishedrulesoflawand
apply another principle keeping in mind public interest and human good.20 Hence, istihsan
becomesausefulprincipleforlegislatingonfreshprinciplesasitcanbeutilizedforsituationsfor
which one cannot find any principle or rule from the classical legal treatises.21 This exposition
seems similar to the expositions of equity as discussed hereinabove.
Hence,wecanseethatthepreceptofequityhasexistedlongagointheoryorasaprincipleoflaw
and it more or less refers to theprincipleofdepartingfromthestrictapplicationofaparticular
law incertaincaseswhereitwouldcauseinjusticeratherthanjusticeandinordertocombatthis
and administerproperjusticeinsuchcases,onemustapplyaprinciplewhichisfair,justandwill
administer justice in the instant case.
3. Origin and Development under Anglo Jurisprudence
Tounderstandequity,itisimportanttodiscusscommonlawfirst.Commonlawcanbedescribed
asthejudge-madelawofEnglandbasedoncustomalthoughitisdisputedwhetherjudgesmake
law or discover it.22 After the Norman Conquest in 1066, the first Norman King, William the
ConquerorsetuptheCuriaRegis(theKing’sCourt)andappointedhisownJudges.TheseJudges
weresenttoothertownsaswelltodecidecasesthatarosethere.OvertimeintheeraofHenryII,
the visits became more and more regularandtheJudgeswouldtravelalloverthecountryfrom
London to decide cases.ThesejudgeswoulddecidecasesbylocalcustomsoroldAnglo-Saxon
laws.Itisbelieved,however,thatthejudgesupontheirreturntoLondonwoulddiscussthecases
theydecidedandwoulddiscussthebestcustomstobeusedbyallofthemshouldtheyencounter
similarcaseslateron.ThishadtheintendedeffectofthelawofEnglandbecomingmoreuniform
or‘common’.Thisiswherethephrase“commonlaw”seemedtohavedeveloped.Thetraveling
magistratesstartedthepracticeofdecidingsimilarcasessimilarlyandhencethedoctrineofstare
decisis (let us stand by things decided) took birth which evolved into the concept of judicial
precedents and became the hallmark of so many legal systems today.23
We have already discussed what common law is and how it developed. Nowletusdiscussthe
problemsthatitcausedandhowequityemergedastheanswertofillinthegapsincommonlaw.
Commonlawwasmuchtoorigidintheearlyyears.Onlycertaintypesofcaseswererecognized
andcouldbebroughttothecommonlawcourts.Apersoncouldlosehiscasebyasimpleerrorin
the formalities! The only remedy common lawcouldgivetopeoplewasdamages,whichcould
not always be the appropriate remedy for each and every case. Suppose, A trespasses into B’s
land andbuildssomethingthere,shouldBapproachthecommonlawcourt,theonlyremedythe
common law court could give was ordering A to pay B in damages, which would be very
unsatisfactory for B. B would rather have the building that A built on his land to be removed
rather than be paid in damages. This rigidness was the primary cause for concern among the
common folk of England who wished for far better justice than simply tobepaidindamages
eachandevery time.Similarly,acasecouldonlyberegisteredifacertainamountofmoneywas
paidtocourt’s stafffirst.Insomecases,themoneytoberecoveredwaslessthantheamountto
be paid for the casetoberegistered.Insuchcasethepoorclaimanthadnochoicebuttoforgo
registrationofhis case.Whenthecasewouldberegisteredthecommonlawcourthadnopower
toforcethe respondenttoappearbeforeit.Itwasacommonexcuseforarespondenttosaythat
hewasona crusadeandcouldnotappearbeforethecourt.Briberyandcorruptionwerecommon.
Alitigant bringingthegreatestnumberofwitnesseswouldwinthecaseandsuchwitnesseswere
available outside the court and wouldgowithanylitigantformoney.Inaddition,thecommon
law court wasusingLatinasthelanguageofthecourtandprocedureandthecommonlitigants
wouldnot knowabouttheconductoftheproceedingsinthecourt.Commonpeopleweresickof
this system and they started approaching the Kingthroughapplicationabouttheirlegalissues.
TheKingused tobeabusymanandwouldsimplypassonsuchanapplicationtohisChancellor
who was the most religious person and wasconsideredKing’slinktoGodand“Keeperofthe
King’s Conscience”.24Hewouldquicklydecidesuchcasesaccordingtoequity(literallyfairness).
While it literallymeansfairness,ithasbeendefinedas“initsbroadestsense,equityisfairness.
Asalegal system,itisabodyoflawthataddressesconcernsthatfalloutsidethejurisdictionof
common law. Equity is also used to describe themoneyvalueofpropertyinexcessofclaims,
liens,ormortgages ontheproperty.”25Hence,asystemthatemergedbyfollowingfairnessrather
thanthestrictand rigidtenantsofthecommonlaw.Unlikethecommonlawcourts,thisinformal
but very quick adjudicationsystemhadnoformalitiesandwaswithouttechnicalities.Itstarted
the practice of sending summons to the respondent forcing him to appear before it. It used
English asthelanguage foradjudication.Thus,thecourtwasdoingequity,justice,andfairness
and was known asthecourt ofequity.Itisonthisbasisthatthesystemofequityevolved.The
Chancellorwoulddecidecases ontheprinciplesofnaturaljustice,fairnessandgoodconscience
rather thanthecustomsand precedentsthatweredecidedpreviously.Hewasachurchmanwho
was familiar with Roman Law.26 Hence, wecanclearlyseethattheChancellorappliedRoman
equitable principles in the petitions that he heard.27 Hewasalsopreparedtolookbeyondlegal
documents which were considered legally binding by the common law courts, and to take
account of what the parties intended to do.28 He also introduced new procedures such as
“subpoenas”29 anddevelopednew remediessuchasinjunctions,specificperformance,rescission
andrectification.Aninjunctionis anorderofacourttoperformornottoperformanact,specific
performance is an order of the court to carry outthecontractasoriginallyagreedbetweenthe
parties, rescission is the process of returning the parties as far as possible to their original
positions before performing the contract, whereas rectification is the altering or rectifying a
mistake in adocumentasthemistakedoesnotreflectthetrueintentionoftheparties.Overtime
equitable maxims were also developed as well which arealsoverywellinusetoday.Onecan
onlybeastonishedandbeataweatthelegalmind oftheChancellorfordevelopingallthesein
order to tackle the problems caused by common law. Eventually a Court of Chancery headed
under the Chancellor was established which operated under the rules of fairness/equity. The
Court of Chancery was originally an administrative body under the Lord Chancellor which
became a largely judicial body in the 14th century which further developed the doctrine of
equity.30 Whileitwasnotanecclesiasticalcourt,itspresidingOfficer,theChancellorwasone,he
hadknowledgeofRomanandthusapplieditindifferentcases.31 In fact,theCourtofChancery
was also called “Backbone to the Roman” as the equitable principles developedunderRoman
civil law largely entered to the English legal system from here.32 Of course,itwasnotalways
uphill from here. Another major problem occurred which was a conflict betweenthecommon
lawcourtandtheCourtofChancery.Thecommonlawcourtwoulddecide amatterinoneway
and the same would be decided differentlybytheCourtofChancery.These twoCourtswould
clashagainandagain.Apersonwhohadhiscasedecidednotinhisfavourby thecommonlaw
court would simply go to the Court of Chancery which would decidethematter inhisfavour.
Hencethelegalsystemwasinperilatthattime.Thecontroversywaseventually resolvedinthe
famousEarlofOxford’scase33.TheKing,JamesIontheadviceofthethen AttorneyGeneralSir
Francis Bacon ruled that in a case where there is a conflict between equity andcommonlaw,
equityshallprevail.Thiswasamajorvictoryforequity.Hence,thepositionof equitybeingthe
moredominantforceagainstcommonlawprevailedforthenexttwocenturiesuntilthepassingof
the Judicature Acts of 1873-1875, which merged the common law court with the Court of
Chancery and its jurisdiction was transferred to the Chancery Division of the High Court.
Hence, equity and common law merged, no longer would there be any conflict or other
problems occurring between the two. And naturally, all of this not just had an impact in just
England but also, its various colonies all of which included British India as well.
4. Equitable Maxims
These are the major maxims of equity that have been used and developed by the courts.
5. Conclusion
Hence from the discussion hereinabove, we can conclude that equity refers to the set of
principles thatallowfortheavoidanceofthestrictapplicationofarigidlawsoastomakesure
that justice rather than injustice is administered in theinstantcase.Ithasitsorigininvarious
different cultures in some form as a theory oralegalprinciple.Itstemsitsoriginalltheway
backfromtheCodeof HammurabiandotherBabyloniantribestotheHebrewtribe’sadditionof
moralprinciplesderived fromtheirreligiousdoctrinestoAristotle’sexpositionofepieikeiaand
epiekis, where he surmises equity is to be usedforthe‘rectification’oflawrather,wherethe
law is too strict and absolute and its literal application would result in injustice rather than
justice.TheRomansincorporatedthe principlesofequityunderthepreceptofaequum/aequitas,
whichmeansequality.TheRomans furtherdevelopedequityintheformvariouslegalprinciples
undertheircodifiedlaw.Equitywas alsopresentunderancientChinesejurisprudenceasqingli,
which refers to compassion and was also present under the ancient Hindu jurisprudence of
dharma, which is the Hindu law of righteousness and has also been referred to natural law,
morality,morallaw,dutyamongothers. UnderIslamicLaw,thereisadebatethatthedoctrineof
istihsanistheIslamiccounterpartof equity,althoughtherearecertainsimilaritiesbetweenboth.
TheEnglishCommonLawwas developedaftertheNormanKing,WilliamtheConquerorsenta
lot of his magistrates to various different towns to decide cases. These judges decided cases
based on old Anglo-Saxon custom and it is believed that on their return to England,theyall
togetherdecidedonthebestcustomstoapply toparticularcases.Thiswasameansofaneffort
tomaketheEnglishlawmoreuniform. Ultimately,itlettotheapplicationanddevelopmentof
the doctrine of staredecisis(similarcases aretodecidedsimilarly).Thelegalsystemsuffered
fromalotofrigidness.TheCommonLaw courtsstrictlyappliedtothelawwhichcausedalot
of inconvenience to parties, it suffered from a distinctive lack of remedies. In fact, the only
remedy common law had was to givedamagestothevictimparty.Itsufferedfromprocedural
rigidnessaswell.Ithadnopowertosummonparties beforethem.Ifsomeonecouldnotdeposit
the required amount for the registration ofhiscase,thenhiscasewouldnotberegistered.The
Common Law courts also exclusively used Latin instead of English which caused a lot of
communication problems. Due to thisalotofpartiesappealedtothe King.TheKing,beinga
busymanhandedsuchcasestohisChancellor,whowasaRomancatholicandhadknowledgeof
roman law. He developed many different equitable principles and new procedures such as
subpoenas and summons to dispense with speedy and proper justice. Ultimately, a Court of
Chancery under the Chancellor was constituted. The Chancery Court applied theprincipleof
equityascomparedtotheCommonLawcourtswhichappliedtheCommon Law.Thenarosea
longconflictbetweentheChanceryCourtsandCommonLawCourtsoverjurisdictionalissues.
One person could lose his caseatoneCourtandwinhiscaseattheother Court.Thisconflict
was eventually settledcenturieslaterwheretheKingdecidedthatinaconflict betweenequity
andcommonlaw,theformerwastoprevail.Duringthe19th century,boththe ChanceryCourts
and the Common Law Courts as a resultoftheJudicatureAct,1873-1875and thustherewas
oneCourtwhichwastoapplybothcommonlawandequity.Therearemany differentequitable
maximsthatweredevelopedbytheCourtsthatarestillinusetoday,namely: Nowrongwithout
a remedy, equity acts in personam, equity actsontheconscience,equityaids thevigilant,not
theindolent/DelayDefeatsequity,equitylookstotheintentionandnottheform, hewhocomes
toequitymustcomewithcleanhands,hewhoseeksequitymustdoequity,where theequities
are equal, the earlier in time prevails, equity follows the law, equity looks at that to be done
whichoughttobedone,equityimputesanintenttofulfillanobligation,equitywillnotassist a
volunteer.