Sources of English Law - Essay Example

The development of non-monetary amends like injunctions and decrees of specific performance was brought in by Equity.
Legislation

Legislation is the commonest source of new laws or of law reform after the Seventeenth century. The most vital legislation is the Acts of Parliament which is known as primary legislation. This becomes binding only after approval in the House of Commons and the House of Lords; after which it gets the Royal Assent from the Queen.
European law
European Union Law is now increasingly becoming the main source of English Law like the Human Rights Act 1998 (implemented in 2000) incorporated into English and all United Kingdom law.
Other Sources: Precedents
The doctrine of precedent is defined as ‘The common law principle which binds a judge or a magistrate to follow the previous similar decision of higher courts in the same hierarchy; also known as stare decisis” (Vickery & Pendleton 2006). The doctrine of precedent derives from common law and law of equity, which are ‘English-made’ laws that aim to be fair and treat all equally so that the decisions by the courts are predictable and consistent in resolving disputes. There are binding and persuasive precedents, which binding precedents are known as ‘ratio decidendi’ when the final order or ‘res judicata’ by the court is made to the immediate parties, and it has a legal effect based on the key reasons for the decision. This includes passed decisions by the higher courts in the same hierarchy in similar cases, which will be used for future similar cases so there are consistent remedies or sanctions under common law. An example of a precedent being used was in the final decision of The House of Lord's case in 1932, for the ‘Donoghue V Stevenson case. The House of Lord's case was similar as manufacturers have the duty of care when selling their products, and ensuring they are safe to consume. Therefore this precedent was legally binding and enforced by common law for a similar outcome.

Importance of Equity

English law prior to the intro of the rule of equity was chiefly ruled by Common Law. Blackstone (2001) specified Common Law as “the municipal law of England or the rule of civil conduct prescribed to the inhabitants of the kingdom. But this system of common law had certain flaws as it did not provide for any remedy in many cases where one was required. This thus paved the requirement for the emergence of the principles of equity and the decisions were given in good conscience.”

Equity is important in English law as it settled some of the blemishes of the common law, which might if not, would have contributed to a loss of public trust in the legal system. The reason is that the characteristic of a civilized culture is an appropriate legal system. An injunction is prohibitive but an order of specific performance enforces a duty to act. Both these types of equitable relief are applied in contract law and can aid to assure that necessities under the contract are met. Equitable remedies are optional, and, if a conflict between equity and the common law arises then equity prevails. Equity has also played its part in the growth of the law of trusts.

Equity is directed at forbidding a defendant from behaving immoderately in situations other than where the common law would have granted to do so. In layman’s nomenclature, it can be said to snooping to shield some fundamental right of the prey either due to a contract with the pettifogger or as the shyster has power over some property which is lawfully theirs or as one may feel that the activities of the pettifogger may influence the injured party in the future in some way or the other (Hudson, 1999).

Parkinson (1996) says it all “No, we ought to think of the relationship between common law and equity not as that between two conflicting systems, but as that between Code and Supplement, that between text and gloss. And we should further remember this, that equity was not a self-sufficient system-It was hardly a system at all-But rather a collection of additional rules. Common-Law was, we may say, a complete system- If the equitable jurisdiction of the Chancery had been destroyed, there still would have been law for every case, somewhat rude law it may be, and law imperfectly adapted to the needs of our time, but still law for every case. On the other hand, if the common law had been abolished then equity would have disappeared also, for at every point is presupposed a great body of Common Law.”