A Self Represented Litigant must understand the difference between common law and equity.
Posted: Sun Aug 17, 2025 2:53 pm
A litigant, especially one representing themselves, must understand the difference between common law and equity.
Common law is a rigid system of laws based on statutes, acts, and past judicial decisions, but it can sometimes lead to unjust outcomes because the laws are applied literally, even if it wasn't the original intent. Equity, on the other hand, is designed to be an "exhaust valve" for the rigidness of common law. It allows judges to apply principles of fairness and justice to a case, making sure the law doesn't become tyrannical through overly literal readings. The historical origins of equity trace back to the English kings who had the power to modify or disregard laws. This power was eventually codified into the Court of Chancery, where judges used equitable principles to ensure justice could be done when common law couldn't. Today, in higher courts, the two concepts are balanced, with judges having the ability to apply both common law and equitable principles to provide a just outcome.
The Nature of Common Law
Common law is a distinct category of law comprising all existing statutes, acts, and established case law that hasn't been repealed. It includes all judicial decisions that affect everyone within the court's jurisdiction. Common law is considered a complete body of judicial decisions, rules, and court procedures that are based on statutes. Because it is based on set rules, parameters, and definitions, common law is often described as rigid and "stuck in time". This rigidity can lead to unintended consequences, as the broad-stroke implications of laws created by politicians may negatively affect people in ways that were not anticipated by the drafters of the legislation.
The Historical Origin of Equity
The need for a system to counter the rigidity of common law became apparent when codified laws led to unjust outcomes if applied as written. This led to the creation of an "exhaust valve," a way to modify the law based on the circumstances of a case. Historically, this need for flexibility was met by the king's power to apply or disregard laws as he saw fit. This arbitrary power was eventually split into two distinct powers for the regular courts and the Court of Chancery. The Court of Chancery was specifically set up to allow for creative applications of the law to achieve justice in individual cases.
The Fusion of Common Law and Equity
For a time, the rigid rules of common law and the flexible principles of equity were so divided that the legal system became ridiculous. Over time, these two legal concepts were brought together to create a balanced system. Today, higher courts have "split jurisdictions," meaning they can apply both common law and equitable principles. This balance allows judges to apply the laws of the land while also using equitable principles to ensure a just outcome for the parties before them.
Tools of Equity
In modern courts, the application of equitable principles involves the use of equitable remedies, which rely on legal axioms and legal maxims. Legal axioms are principles that are believed to be true without needing proof because they have been proven so many times. Legal maxims serve as guiding factors that help a judge make decisions based on the evidence in front of them. These tools allow the judge to balance the legal equation and find justice in a given situation. It's crucial for a litigant to understand these principles, as they are an essential part of the legal "tool chest" for achieving legal goals.
The Three Pillars of a Court Case
When a case is heard in court, three key elements come together to determine the outcome: common law, the facts of the case, and jurisprudence. Common law consists of the case law, statutes, and acts applicable to that jurisdiction. The facts of the case are what can be proven to be true. The final element is jurisprudence, which is the philosophy of law and is generally understood to be about fairness and natural law. The concept of natural law means that everyone has a right to be heard and a right to a fair hearing. This is the system we have, and as a litigant, you must use it to your advantage or risk being trampled by ignorance. There is no opting out; you have to play the game to achieve a positive outcome.
Conclusion
It's vital for a self-represented litigant to learn and apply these legal concepts. Understanding the difference between the rigid nature of common law and the flexible, justice-seeking nature of equity is crucial. Today, judges are expected to use both common law and equitable principles to ensure a just outcome. The legal system, especially with the advent of the internet, is more accessible than ever. Therefore, it is essential to be well-versed in these principles and use them to your advantage. By understanding the common law, the facts of your case, and the philosophical underpinnings of jurisprudence, you can navigate the system effectively.