Norman Conquest and Legal Changes

The Norman invasion of England in 1066 led to a change in the legal and land ownership system. Feudalism was introduced, where the King granted land to nobles (tenants-in-chief) in return for military service. Later levels of tenants were also in this system dependent upon upper level landlords.

Before the Norman Conquest, England's legal system was based on local customs and informal assemblies. Decisions were sometimes made through unusual methods like tests/ordeals.

A group of people (jurors) who provide a judgement based on their knowledge. This eventually evolved to include people from the general public to avoid bias.

Trials by physical tests, like holding a hot object, or swimming in water. Used frequently prior to the Norman Conquest. Also included combat tests.

A legal procedure placing a person outside the protection of the law. Anyone could kill an outlaw without consequence.

Formal orders from a court, requiring an individual's presence. Part of a growing system for legal procedure.

The King's council that travelled with him, holding courts for tenants-in-chief, eventually developing into a centralized court system.

The body of law developed based on the customs and procedures established after the Norman Conquest.

The principle of following previous court decisions as guidance in new cases, creating consistency in legal rulings.

A legal document used to demand payment of an owed sum of money, filed in a court to resolve financial disputes.

A writ that addresses a breach of contract or agreement, seeking legal action to enforce the terms.

A writ used to claim legal ownership of land or property, bringing the dispute to court for resolution.

Over time, repeated use of specific writs for similar issues established patterns, creating precedents for future cases.

The principle that everyone, including rulers, is subject to the same laws, ensuring fairness and equality.

A system where rulers are above the law, with arbitrary power and decisions, leading to potential injustice.

A historic document limiting the King's power and establishing basic rights for individuals, a cornerstone of English law.

A royal court established by King Henry II in 1178, responsible for resolving disputes between private individuals, focusing on civil property and claims. It had a fixed location in Westminster Hall.

A royal court handling criminal matters, cases involving the monarchy, and certain civil cases. It initially traveled with the King but later established itself in Westminster Hall.

A royal court initially responsible for managing the King's finances. It evolved into a separate entity with jurisdiction over financial matters, gradually expanding its scope to include common pleas cases.

The King's council that traveled with him, initially serving as a primary court for tenants-in-chief and eventually leading to the development of a centralized court system in England.

A body of rules developed within the Court of Chancery to address the limitations of common law, emphasizing fairness and justice in resolving disputes. It offered a flexible approach compared to the strictness of common law.

While common law provides established remedies, equity creates new remedies when common law fails. It also offers more flexible and adaptable solutions. Example: Specific performance, injunctions.

It made jury trials mandatory in criminal cases. It also revised land laws, influencing property ownership and inheritance.

It limited the authority of local courts, expanding the jurisdiction of royal courts, and broadened the scope of damage actions.

These statutes helped centralize the English legal system, shifting power from local courts to the King's courts and solidifying the role of jury trials.

This act significantly reorganized the English court system, merging various courts, including the Court of Exchequer and the Court of Common Pleas, into the High Court of Justice.

Two separate legal systems: common law focuses on precedents and judges' decisions, while equity provides remedies for fairness when common law fails to do so.

A landmark case where the Court of Chancery (equity) intervened to prevent a common law decision that was deemed unjust, establishing equity's power over common law.

Unreasonable delay in pursuing a legal claim, which can result in its dismissal in equity court.

A principle in equity law that seeks to put all parties in a legal dispute on a level playing field, ensuring equal rights and responsibilities.

Landmark laws that unified the historically separate courts of common law and equity, creating a single system of justice in England.

Equity aims to provide fair and just remedies when common law falls short, offering solutions like specific performance, injunctions, recission, and rectification.

This principle states that someone seeking equitable relief must not be guilty of wrongdoing related to their claim. If they have 'dirty hands,' equity will not help them.

Equity focuses on the individual involved in a dispute, not just the property at stake. It aims to right the wrong against the person, not the property itself.

This maxim emphasizes that those who delay seeking equitable relief risk having their claim dismissed. Equity favors those who act promptly.

This principle demands putting all parties in a legal dispute on a level playing field, ensuring equal rights and responsibilities for everyone involved.

Common law focuses on compensation for losses (damages) through established rules, while equity provides additional solutions when common law remedies are inadequate or unjust.

This principle ensures that when there is a legal right, there is a corresponding remedy available. Equity steps in to ensure justice even when common law is lacking.

Equity evolved as a complement to common law, addressing gaps in justice and offering flexible solutions when rigid legal rules proved insufficient.

In Ashby v White, a man who was prevented from voting successfully sued for damages, highlighting equity's role in righting wrongs even without specific laws.

In D&C Builders Ltd v Rees, a builder was denied equitable relief because they agreed to a reduced payment due to their financial situation. The court ruled they had 'dirty hands' by agreeing to the unfair deal.