by statutes where as equity is in essence principles‚ doctrines and rules advanced initially by the Court of Chancery in positive competition with those of the Common Law Courts. This competition began when litigants became dissatisfied with the remedy laid down by Common Law Courts. In these instances litigants preferred to petition the King for him to mediate in cases. This was dealt with by the King’s Chancellor who determined each case according to his own discretion. Over the years‚ these decisions
Premium Common law Jury Judge
are used as a set of general principles which are said to govern the way in which equity operates. They illustrates the standards of morality in judicial decision making1 and therefore are used as guides in the decision making process in disputes in equity. This assignment focus on how maxims of equity influence judges of Malaysia in making judicial decision. From there‚ I will also discuss how these maxims have assisted the development of laws in different areas of law. The three maxims that
Premium Contract Injunction
the legal system. The only remedy that could be obtained through common law is monetary relief‚ damages. However‚ damages are not always the best solution for a case. For example‚ a person was harassed and all he could seek for is monetary relief in common law when it was clearly the best to prohibit the culprit from doing so. In equity‚ there is a maxim which is ‘Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy’. This allows equity to create new remedies where otherwise the plaintiff would
Premium Common law
“The decision in the American Cyanamid case is a complete breakaway from the settled principles upon which an application for an interlocutory injunction is granted”. Critically examine this statement. An interlocutory injunction is an equitable remedy‚ which temporarily prohibits the defendant‚ from continuing a particular activity. The purpose of this injunction is to maintain the status quo or preserve the subject matter so that no permanent harm is done to the rights of the applicant before
Premium Jury Prima facie Trial
Judicial Activism vs. Judicial Self-Restraint There are many differences between Judicial Activism and Judicial Self Restraint. Judicial Activism is the process by which judges take an active role in the governing process and Judicial Self Restraint is that Judges should not read their own philosophies into the constitution. Judicial activism is the view that the Supreme Court should be an active and creative partner with the legislative and executive branches in help shaping the government policy
Premium Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution Plessy v. Ferguson
which lead the Acts of Parliament (statues) to be the main sources of law today. Decisions made by the judges are also essential today as they interpreted Parliamentary law where there was no statue law. During the twentieth century statue law and judicial decisions continued to be the major sources of law but‚ in addition there were two new sources became increasingly important these were delegated legislation and European law. Delegated legislation is law made by a body other than Parliament. Parliament
Premium Common law Law
in other situations which were materially similar.’1 With both Common Law and Equity offering different solutions to the same legal issues‚ it is argued that for justice there must be consistency with judicial rulings. 2 The current system means that in certain cases the right to an equitable remedy is more valuable. An example of inconsistencies between case verdicts due to Equity and Common Law having different principles is that of having legal and equitable title to property. If a person has
Premium Law Common law Property
USU 1300 Is Judicial Activism in the best interest of the American people? Suzanna Sherry reminds us in her working paper‚ Why We Need More Judicial Activism‚ that “an examination of constitutional practice shows that too little activism produces worse consequences than does too much” and since we cannot assure judges are consistently “fair” it is better to be overly aggressive than overly restrained. In the most basic sense‚ judicial activism is when judges apply their own political opinion in
Premium
Judicial Precedent is another important source of law‚ it is an independent source of law‚ where there are no legislations on the particular point in statute Books‚ and Judicial Precedent works great. Judicial precedent has been accepted as one of the important sources of law in most of the legal systems. It is also a continuous‚ growing source of law. According to Salmond‚ the doctrine of precedent has two meanings‚ namely (1) in a loose sense precedent includes merely reported case-law which may
Free Common law Precedent Law
ARTICLE VIII JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law. Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable‚ and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government. Section
Free Law Judge Jury