What is equity:

In jurisdictions following the English common law tradition, equity is the set of legal
principles that supplement strict rules of law where their application would operate
harshly. In civil legal systems, broad "general clauses" allow judges to have similar
leeway in applying the code.
Equity is commonly said to "mitigate the rigor of common law", allowing courts to use
their discretion and apply justice in accordance with natural law. In practice, modern
equity is limited by substantive and procedural rules, and English and Australian legal
writers tend to focus on technical aspects of equity. There are 12 "vague ethical
statements" that guide the application of equity, and an additional five can be added.
As noted below, a historical criticism of equity as it developed was that it had no fixed
rules of its own, with the Lord Chancellor occasionally judging in the main according to
his own conscience. The rules of equity later lost much of their flexibility, and from the
17th century onwards equity was rapidly consolidated into a system of precedents much
like its common-law cousin.

Definition :
'Equity is the application of the law based on fairness rather than rigid application of
strict legal rules'
Explenation
Equity has been an extremely important source in the development of our legal system.
Even today it stills plays a part with many modern legal concepts having been
developed from equitable principles. Equity means fairness and this is the way in which
it adds and amends our law. The early common law became very rigid and only certain
types of cases were recognised by the courts. The common law was very complicated
and individuals bringing a case would often find their claim would fail on the basis of an
error in the formalities. Another major problem with the common law was the only
remedy available was damages (the payment of a sum of money), which wasn't always
an appropriate remedy for the plaintiff (the person bringing the claim - now called the
claimant).

Under these condition people were unable to obtain justice under the common law so
they appealed to the king. The king would refer these cases to his Chancellor who

would make a decision on the basis of natural justice nad fairness - making decisions
on a case by case basis on what seemed right in the particular circumstances rather
than on the basis of strict legal precedents and rules.

The Chancellor developed new remedies such as injunctions (an order to stop someone
from doing something) and specific performance (an order to compel someone to do
something), these remedies are still used in our legal system today - more information
on them can be found here. Eventually a Court of Chancery came into being which
operated under these rules of fairness or equity. Equity was not a system of law in its
own right it merely filled the gaps left by the common law.

Equity as a souece of law in common legal system :

Equity is the major development, which came somewhat later than the common law
courts, was the Court of Chancery. Equity came about principally because the
common law developed into a somewhat inflexible system. This court developed an
entire body of law known as Equity and a major branch of this is the law of trusts.
"Equity" always fully recognised the position as far as common law was concerned.
Hence, Equity never sought to replace the common law but it added some important
concepts and devised additional remedies such as "injunctions." The Court of
Chancery was also merged into the modern High Court in 1875.

Common Law and Equity since the formation of the modern High
Court :
When the modern High Court was formed, it was no longer necessary to administer
Common Law and Equity in different courts. Courts now apply both and in any case
where the rules of common law and equity conflict then the rules of equity prevail. Such
conflicts have been extremely rare - one example is the "land law" case of Walsh v
Lonsdale (1882) 21 Ch.D. 9.

Conflicts between equity and the common law :

At first the systems of common law and equity operated separately and this led to
conflicts between them. One of the main difficulties was that the common law courts

would make a decision in favour of one party and the Court of Chancery would make a
decision in favour of the other! This problem was finally settled in the Earl of Oxford's
case (1615) when the king ruled that equity should prevail, or put another way the
decision made in the Chancery court was the one that must be accepted and followed
by the parties.

The operation of equity :

There were few guidelines for the Chancellor to follow initially, over time a series of
maxims were developed which formed the basis on which the sytem of equity operated.
Today the doctrine of judicial precedent (click here for more on judicial precedent)
applies to cases involving equity just as much as it applies to cases involving the
common law.

Some Equitable Maxims :

1:Equity looks to the intention and not the form
He who comes to equity must come with clean hands.
2 :Equity does not require an idle gesture.
3 :Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy.
4 :Equity will not allow a trust to fail for want of a trustee
Delay defeats equity.

Equity Case Laws :

A: Race Equity:
Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896:
In an argument about the application of the 14th Amendment, the court interpreted the
equal protection clause as requiring the enforcement of absolute equality of the races
before the law. However, this established the "separate but equal" doctrine with respect
to the concept of equal opportunity.

Brown v. Board of Education, 1954:

Supreme Court ruling against "separate but equal" school facilities on the basis of race
or color. Overturned the "Plessy" verdict.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003:
Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of
Michigan Law School. The Supreme Court's majority ruling held that the United States
Constitution "does not prohibit the law school's narrowly tailored use of race in
admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational
benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
Gratz v. Bollinger, 2003:
The Supreme Courtfor the reasons set forth in Grutteraccepted that the University
of Michigan had a compelling interest in achieving diversity. However, the Supreme
Court struck down the universitys undergraduate admissions program, because the
university used a point system that automatically awarded 20 points, one-fifth of the
points required to guarantee admission, to every underrepresented minority applicant
solely because of race.
Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 2007:
The Supreme Court considered challenges to voluntary efforts by the Seattle,
Washington, and Jefferson County (Louisville), Kentucky, school districts to use
individualized racial classifications to achieve diversity or avoid racial isolation through
their student assignment plans. The Supreme Court held that Seattle and Louisville had
not demonstrated that they seriously considered race-neutral alternatives; the individual
racial classifications used had a minimal impact that cast doubt on their necessity; the
districts defined diversity in overly limited terms that did not adequately reflect the
diversity within the districts; and the districts plans did not provide for a meaningful,
individualized review of student assignments.
Sex Equity
Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 1992:
Supreme Court ruling establishing that money damages are available in sexual
harassment cases under Title IX.
Brown University v. Cohen, 1997:
The Supreme Court declined to review a lower court ruling, letting stand the standard
that school sports opportunities must be offered to females in substantial proportion to

their enrollment; or schools must show a history of expanding females to match their
interest in sports.
National Origin Equity
Lau v. Nichols, 1974:
Supreme Court ruling which established that students who do not speak English are
denied a meaningful opportunity to participate in public education programs, when
instruction is presented only in English and no other mediation is provided.
Plyler v. Doe, 1982:
Supreme Court ruling which established the need and responsibility to provide free
basic education to all students regardless of the legality of their immigration status.
Castaneda v. Pickard, 1981:
The Supreme Court set forth a three-part test for determining whether a district has
taken appropriate actions to overcome language barriers:
1) whether the school district has a program based on educational theory recognized by
experts in the field;
2) whether programs and practices used by the school district are implementing this
theory;
3) whether the program is succeeding after legitimate trial to produce results.