Common Law And Equity Case Study

To understand about the issue of fusion between Common Law and Equity it is very important to look back at the history of equity, where common law is widely discuss and debates, the same should also apply to equity. At the early stage of equity it seems that common law and equity principle are very differ in principles where the common law seek justice through precedents, equity thrive by its own set of principles, one of its principle is to judge a case by case basis. Based on English law history it all started after the Norman Conquest, the King then hold the power of justice as all source of law was held in his hand . The common law then derived it’s power from the king through in the form of writ, then at the later stage equity is derived …show more content…
In this decided case the court give awards for exemplary damages, this case is about breach of fiduciary duty, Sir Robin Cook stated that the common law and equity is mixed and merged, he also believe that whatever the circumstances the remedies should be available whether it is provided by equity, common law or statute. The case mark a positive development for the growth of equity and common law to be more fair and efficient. The case clearly send a signal to common law world that it is possible to award a common law remedy in a case which involve equitable …show more content…
But whatever one calls the process, it must be recognised as a process involving a deliberate judicially-engineered change in the law... Even though the statement is true to some extent it is still defeat the purpose of the court if we cannot provide the suitable remedies because we feel the chain of history which in turn shackle our development of law.

In the case of Pilmer v The Duke Group Ltd, the court in deciding a case involving tortious breach of fiduciary claim, approach the case with a narrow mind which then cause unfairness towards the victims because Kirby J believe that to unify both laws remedies would be severing the historical foundations which devide both laws and thus create a hindrance for the judges. This decision certainly receive criticisms , but most notably from Nicholls J in Attorney-General v Blake . Which the judge stated that: …as a matter of principle, it is difficult to see why equity required the wrongdoer to account for all his profits… whereas the common law’s response was to require the wrongdoer to pay a reasonable fee… This difference in remedial response seems to have arisen simply as an accident of