Importance of equity

In common law, a formality among judges was developed, typified by a reluctance to deal with matters that were not or could not be processed in the proper form of action. In other words, if a person did not follow the proper procedure or done an error in the formalities, the person making the claim would lose the case even though that person obviously suffered a wrong. It is one of the equitable maxims that 'Equity looks to the intention and not the form' which stands that it is fair to look at the intention rather than the fact they got the formalities wrong. This maxim was shown in the case of Berry v Berry (1929) where a deed was held to have been altered by a simple contract which is not possible in common law. However, equity decided that it is allowed with the presence of intention. The flexibility of equity had provided much more fairness and justice for the people. With the presence of equity, people tend to have more confidence in the legal system. The only remedy that could be obtained through common law is monetary relief, damages. However, damages are not always the best solution for a case. For example, a person was harassed and all he could seek for is monetary relief in common law when it was clearly the best to prohibit the culprit from doing so. In equity, there is a maxim which is ‘Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy’. This allows equity to create new remedies where otherwise the plaintiff would not have an adequate remedy for the case and would only be able to claim the common law remedy of damages. Equitable remedies had been highly demanded since it was able to give a much satisfactory in the relief as it is based on remedy that suit best with case. In the early development of equity the notion of conscience underpinned the grounds for the intervention of equitable relief and explained by Lord Ellesmere in the famous Earl of Oxford’s Case where the Chancellor held that men’s actions are so diverse and infinite that it