75-575: The Delaware Court of Chancery is a court of equity in the U.S. state of Delaware . It is one of Delaware's three constitutional courts, along with the Supreme Court and Superior Court . Since 2018, the court consists of seven judges. The court is known for being a hub for corporate governance litigation in the United States, as two-thirds of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in Delaware. It
150-408: A legal proceeding brought by one party in the absence of and without representation of or notification to the other party. The term is also used more loosely to refer to improper unilateral contacts with a court , arbitrator , or represented party without notice to the other party or counsel for that party. The phrase was common in the titles of habeas corpus and judicial review cases until
225-546: A court of equity to exercise its jurisdiction to prevent the publication of false declarations determined to cause harm to an individual's trade. A limitation to a court of equity's jurisdiction in this area is its inability to prohibit the publication of false or derogatory statements detrimental to a plaintiff's profession or title to property – whereby such assertions are not attendant to threats, coercion, intimidation, or any direct attack. The judicature system has been implemented across Australia , with South Australia being
300-561: A dual approach, whereby equity in the court existed for the purpose of creating "new equitable rules which gradually hardened into common law by virtue of their usage across time". The period after the American Revolution saw the abolition of chancery courts (or their merger with courts of law) in American states such as Massachusetts , New York, and Virginia . That was the result of equity being disfavoured and rejected until, late in
375-669: A jury arise, the Court of Chancery may order such facts to trial by issues at the Bar of the Superior Court of Delaware . (10 Del. C., 369). Article IV, Section 10 of the Delaware Constitution establishes the Court and provides that it "shall have all the jurisdiction and powers vested by the laws of this State in the Court of Chancery." Title 10, Section 341 of the Delaware Code states that
450-548: A more effective remedy on the litigant, who previously attained common law relief. The courts of equity in England are recognised for operating in personam , while the common law courts act in rem . This means that the court of equity's jurisdiction constitutes acts only against the conscience of a person or a number of persons, rather than a claim against an item of property. Yet, there are several exceptions to this. Given that equity does not pertain definitive or formal rules,
525-416: A practical matter, this means that the Court cannot grant relief in the form of money damages to compensate a party for a loss or where another court has coterminous jurisdiction. However, under the rules of equity, the court can grant monetary relief in the form of restitution by ruling that another party has unjustly gained money that belongs to the plaintiff. Apart from its general equitable jurisdiction,
600-402: A respondent would allow him or her to cause irreversible damage before the notice takes effect. Stark and Choplin argued that such damage would be possible if ex parte orders were not used for restraining orders, and that the very fact of an order being issued might increase the chance of the respondent causing damage. The phrase has also traditionally been used in the captions of petitions for
675-506: A result, equity existed in conjunction with the common law. Prior to this, the Courts of Chancery experienced shortcomings and a "period of decline and stagnation" during the early 18th century. Such defects included jurisdictional delays, administrative complications, costly proceedings and burdensome processes. By the early 1500s, a vast proportion of the court's workload was attributed to cases concerning equity. W.S. Holdsworth believed that
750-643: A second hearing is usually set a short time later to allow the alleged abuser to answer for the allegations. An article about such restraining orders, authored by Debra Stark and Jessica Choplin, indicated this concept in its title, "Seeing the Wrecking Ball in Motion: Ex Parte Protection Orders and the Realities of Domestic Violence". The idea is that ex parte orders must be used in a "wrecking ball" type of situation, where giving advance notice to
825-618: A single Supreme Court of New South Wales with complete jurisdiction within both common law and equity prior to the adoption of the Judicature Act in NSW, they remained being treated as separate courts. Unlike most countries, the equity jurisdiction always operated and was administered in conjunction with the law in India, through the courts, and not in resistance to it. Following the British codification of
SECTION 10
#1732859374903900-493: A temporary restraining order, sometimes on an ex parte basis, to prevent the transaction from taking place and preserve the status quo . If the Court grants that relief, the plaintiff will then seek a preliminary injunction to maintain the current state of affairs until a trial can take place. Title 10, Section 342 of the Delaware Code provides that the Court shall not hear any matters for which an adequate remedy exists at law or which can be heard by any other Delaware court. As
975-479: Is among the preeminent business courts in the world. Many companies prefer to incorporate in Delaware because of the state's corporate-friendly tax system and the Court's historical expertise in business litigation. The Court's judges tend to be longtime members of the Delaware State Bar Association who have spent their careers doing corporate litigation. Because of the extensive experience of
1050-405: Is frequently exercised in the context of disputes involving mergers and acquisitions or sales of corporations, wherein a corporate suitor or a shareholder will attempt to enjoin—that is, prevent—the sale or merger of a corporation, claiming that their stock value has been diluted or that they have superior rights to purchase the corporation. In a typical sale or merger dispute, a plaintiff will seek
1125-500: Is no rivalry between the two jurisdictions; given that they can freely undertake proceedings as though the other didn't exist, and no grievances or restraints are made between them regarding the validity of their operations. The objective of this jurisdiction is to provide "a more perfect remedy or to apply a more perfect procedure than the other court could give or apply". Associated with new procedure, auxiliary jurisdiction recognises situations of equity assisting in proceedings through
1200-430: Is used in two senses. The predominant use is to refer to an ex parte hearing, being one which is heard in the absence of one or more parties. Where proceedings are heard ex parte, a high degree of candour is required, including full and fair disclosure of facts adverse to the moving party. A failure to make such disclosure is ordinarily sufficient to warrant discharge of such order as might be made. The other use means 'on
1275-617: The Court of King's Bench (or Queen's Bench when the monarch was female), the Court of Common Pleas , and the Court of the Exchequer . The sole English court of equity was the Court of Chancery . Along with the remainder of the original Thirteen Colonies , Delaware imported the English concept of common law . This included establishing a separate Court of Chancery. As the legal system evolved in England,
1350-613: The Delaware Court of Chancery . Ex parte In law , ex parte ( / ɛ k s ˈ p ɑːr t eɪ , - iː / ) is a Latin term meaning literally "from/out of the party/faction of" (name of party/faction, often omitted), thus signifying "on behalf of (name)". An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present. In English law and its derivatives, namely Australian , New Zealand , Canadian , South African , Indian , and U.S. legal doctrines , ex parte means
1425-468: The English Judicature Act 1873 established the new High Court of Justice and Court of Appeal division to substitute the old Chancery, Common Pleas , Queen's Bench and Exchequer Courts . Subsequently, changes in the court's administration included the ability for separate divisions to obtain coexisting jurisdiction in relation to common law and equitable principles. As Lord Watson stated,
1500-648: The High Court . There was however no appearance for the first respondents in the bankruptcy cases, the judges of the Federal Court. In the United States, the availability of ex parte orders or decrees from both federal and state courts is sharply limited by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which provide that a person shall not be deprived of any interest in liberty or property without due process of law. In practice this has been interpreted to require adequate notice of
1575-574: The High Court of Chancery of Great Britain as it existed prior to the separation of the American colonies. The General Assembly may confer upon the Court of Chancery additional statutory jurisdiction. In today's practice, the litigation in the Court of Chancery consists largely of corporate matters, trusts, estates, and other fiduciary matters, disputes involving the purchase and sale of land, questions of title to real estate, and commercial and contractual matters in general. When issues of fact to be tried by
SECTION 20
#17328593749031650-624: The King after the separation of the Supreme Court of Judicature . Under the Chancellor's authority, the "King's law" prevailed in local courts. The division did not handle actual cases but performed functions associated with the King's secretarial department. Although the Chancery Division did not function as a court, judicial activity was still present. Limited discretionary power was provided, determining
1725-515: The Lord Chancellor of England and primarily heard claims for relief other than damages, such as specific performance and extraordinary writs . Over time, most equity courts merged with courts of law, and the adoption of various Acts granted courts combined jurisdiction to administer common law and equity concurrently. Courts of equity are now recognized for complementing the common law by addressing its shortcomings and promoting justice . In
1800-535: The National Security Agency permission to perform certain types of electronic surveillance, operates on a permanent ex parte basis. Parties other than the government are not normally permitted to argue in front of the court, though it is possible for the recipients of court orders to challenge them in other ways. This is as directed by statute. Most US states also allow for initial hearings regarding civil protection orders to be done ex parte; however,
1875-515: The Woolf Reforms , judicial reviews in England were cited Regina v [The Public Body] ex parte [Person] , where the person was the one actually bringing the case. The 'Regina' (or Rex if the monarch is a male) refers to the sovereign in whose name all judicial reviews are brought. This derives from the petition for writs, which were in the name of the Crown. Since the reforms, cases are now named Rex (on
1950-405: The governor and confirmed by the state senate for 12-year terms. The Court is subject to the "major-party" rule in the Delaware constitution. Also known as the political balance requirement, this requires that the bare majority of the court "shall be of one major political party", and the other judges "shall be of the other major political party". As a result, any person not affiliated with either
2025-517: The governor for a 12-year term. They are required to be equally divided between the major political parties, so that among all the chancellors no party has a majority of more than one person. The Court also employs three full-time Magistrates in Chancery (formerly known as Masters in Chancery), appointed by the Chancellor under Court of Chancery Rule 144. The Magistrates adjudicate cases assigned to them by
2100-530: The writ of habeas corpus , which were (and in some jurisdictions, still are) styled as " Ex parte Doe," where Doe was the name of the petitioner who was alleged to be wrongfully held. As the Supreme Court's description of nineteenth century practice in Ex parte Milligan shows, however, such proceedings were not ex parte in any significant sense. The prisoner's ex parte application sought only an order requiring
2175-666: The 19th century, federal judges revived the equitable injunction. The early amendments of the United States Constitution explicitly acknowledged common law and equity as being clear divisions of jurisprudence. However, Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure came into effect in 1938 to unite common law with equitable claims. Other states maintained their courts of equity, although many have more recently merged them with their courts of law. Only Delaware, Mississippi and Tennessee still have separate equity courts, such as
2250-474: The Court "shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters and causes in equity." Subsequent decisions have held that the Court's equitable jurisdiction is the same as that held by the English High Court of Chancery at the time of American independence in 1776. The Court's most significant power is its ability to issue preliminary and permanent injunctions and temporary restraining orders . This
2325-463: The Court has jurisdiction over a number of other matters. First, the Court has sole power to appoint guardians of the property and person for mentally or physically disabled Delaware residents. Similarly, the Court may also appoint guardians for minors, although the Family Court has coterminous jurisdiction over such matters. Will contests and disputes over interpretations of trusts are also heard by
Delaware Court of Chancery - Misplaced Pages Continue
2400-495: The Court, with a particular focus on "the people's concerns in equity," such as guardianships, property disputes, and trust and estate matters. The current Magistrates in Chancery are Selena E. Molina, Loren Mitchell, and Bonnie W. David. Court of equity A court of equity , also known as an equity court or chancery court , is a court authorized to apply principles of equity rather than principles of law to cases brought before it. These courts originated from petitions to
2475-497: The Court. In 1952, the Court of Chancery held in Gebhart v. Belton that the operation of segregated school systems in Delaware was unlawful, two full years before the U.S. Supreme Court would do so in Brown v. Board of Education . The Chancellor is responsible for appointing a judge on the court to preside over a case. The Court sits without a jury. All issues of fact are determined by
2550-544: The Delaware Court of Chancery repeat the "folklore of the Delaware bench and bar, saying that the impetus for creating a Court of Chancery was to provide a new judicial seat for Delaware's first Chancellor, William Killen." Killen was the elderly and highly respected incumbent Chief Justice of Delaware, and when George Read was considered to be the new Chief Justice of Delaware, he refused unless adequate provisions were made for Killen. A separate Court of Chancery under Killen
2625-403: The Delaware courts, Delaware has a more well-developed body of case law than other states, which serves to give corporations and their counsel greater guidance on matters of corporate governance and transaction liability issues. More than two thirds of Fortune 500 companies are incorporated in the state. Delaware is the home to more than 1.8 million corporations, more than the number of residents in
2700-578: The English Court of Chancery was eventually abolished by the Judicature Act 1873-75 and its powers merged into what was then called ' The Supreme Court of Judicature ' (comprising the High Court and the Court of Appeal ) which exercised jurisdiction in both common law and equity. This was prompted in part by similar reforms which had taken place elsewhere, notably the abolition of the New York Court of Chancery in 1847. Most American jurisdictions followed
2775-442: The King. During the 14th and 15th centuries, the Chancery developed into an independent and extensive bureaucracy . Its formalized role involved issuing writs regarding inheritance or property transfers, which served as the justice's authorization for initiating claims in the King's courts . In the 16th century, the modern system of equity and the Chancellor evolved into a body with recognized judicial features. Consequently,
2850-563: The Republican or Democratic Party is not able to serve on the court. The Court's jurisdiction is a hybrid of constitutional provisions, statutes, and case law. According to the Delaware Judicial Information Center: The Court of Chancery has jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters and causes in equity. The general equity jurisdiction of the Court is measured in terms of the general equity jurisdiction of
2925-646: The States of California and Illinois, ex parte proceedings are available if notice is given before 10 a.m. the previous court day, or even shorter upon showing of emergency need. As most courts in these two states hold law and motion hearings in the early morning, this notice is typically confirmed by facsimile although oral notice may be effective. Some courts in California have procedures to allow opponents to appear telephonically, while other courts do not allow any oral argument and only consider written papers. In California,
3000-420: The administration of justice in other courts". Related to pre-trial, the court of equity has the power to produce documents which common law courts could not as a tool for discovery procedures . The court is required to maintain the present state of affairs, without any direct relief, until the parties’ rights are dictated at common law. It also has the authority after settlement to aid in relief by deliberating
3075-494: The application of equitable principles. Originating from the diverse rules of the early Courts of Chancery , today's courts can exercise equitable jurisdiction while maintaining their inherent discretionary abilities to address new forms of injustice. Equity is not an independent body of law; rather, it is synonymous with corrective justice and complements common law to counterbalance its inflexible rules. The historical emergence of equity occurred during three significant periods:
Delaware Court of Chancery - Misplaced Pages Continue
3150-665: The application of the Boilermakers Society of Australia . While the case name is 'ex parte' it was not heard in the absence of a party, with the judges being represented by D I Menzies QC who also represented the Commonwealth Attorney-General . Similarly the case of Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally concerned application of McNally for a writ of prohibition in relation to proceedings in the Federal Court that were commenced by Wakim. Both McNally and Wakim appeared in
3225-560: The application of' when used in the case name where prerogative relief is sought, such as a writ of prohibition , certiorari or mandamus . Thus for example the case name in the Boilermakers' case is R v Kirby; Ex parte Boilermakers' Society of Australia as the case concerned a writ of prohibition that was sought against Kirby , Dunphy and Ashburner , who were judges of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration , on
3300-487: The areas of environmental degradation, tort law, strict liability doctrines and human rights. As there is no separate court in Scotland which exclusively operates an equity jurisdiction, the country's legal system is classified as mixed. The Court of Session controls both jurisdictions, by differentiating between common law and equity throughout cases brought before it. This provides greater certainty to parties, given that
3375-518: The common law (common injunctions will be upheld) in situations of conflict or discrepancy between the opposing principles. Prior to the introduction of the Judicature systems, the enforcement of equitable claims could only occur in a Court of Chancery who held the power to grant relief, and not by the common law. Equating to new rights, exclusive jurisdiction provided relief against breaches of legal privileges which were not preserved by equity within
3450-409: The concurrent jurisdiction. Such intervention was sanctioned as it ensured irreversible injury was effectively compensated by damages, and it prevented the multiplicity of claims regarding the same issue. The body of law/court acts without right where it interferes with the other who has exclusive jurisdiction; allowing for the relevant sovereign to be curtailed. The nature of the exclusive jurisdiction
3525-464: The court has the power to provide relief in either equity or common law where the party is not entitled to one or the other. As the two jurisdictions became indistinguishable, "what in effect was a rule in equity became in practice considered as common law". Scottish lawyers have raised concern that this system would create unjust decisions where cases are approached in terms of combining equity and common law reasoning. Others followed Lord Kames's view of
3600-410: The courts "is to prevent the law from adhering too rigidly to its own rules and principles when those rules and principles produce injustice". Given that equitable principles are not absolute in nature, it is acceptable for the courts to depart from any rules when they conflict with justice. Unlike legal justice, equitable justice develops on an individualised and case-by-case basis within the courts for
3675-401: The courts are required to assess explicit conduct through its flexible nature and discretionary powers. The courts address fundamental principles of good faith , generosity, morality , honesty and integrity, while also evaluating the relative fairness between the parties. Provided the latitude of the Chancellor's discretion and scope of equitable remedies, it has allowed the courts to consider
3750-487: The distinctions between law and equity as well as between courts of law and courts of equity. In New Jersey, this distinction is upheld between the civil and general equity divisions of the New Jersey Superior Court . The unique nature of courts of equity is a result of their historical evolution. This history has been crucial in shaping their application in case law , reflecting the values that have developed
3825-611: The early years of the United States, some states followed the English tradition of maintaining separate courts for law and equity. Others combined both types of jurisdiction in their courts, as the US Congress did for federal courts . United States bankruptcy courts serve as an example of a US federal court that operates as a court of equity. A few common law jurisdictions, such as the U.S. states of Delaware , Mississippi , New Jersey , South Carolina , and Tennessee , continue to preserve
SECTION 50
#17328593749033900-480: The end of the twentieth century, because those cases were originally brought by the Crown on behalf of the claimant. In Commonwealth common law jurisdictions, the title typically appeared as R v (Defendant), ex parte (Claimant) ; in the US, this was shortened to Ex parte (Claimant). A proceeding in an executive agency to establish a right, such as patent prosecution , can also be ex parte . In Australian law ex parte
3975-410: The enforcement of legal rights where it did not have concurrent jurisdiction over the matter. The Court of Chancery did not arbitrate where adequate relief was accessible at common law and the adjudication of the legality of the litigant's claim was left to the responsibility of common law courts. This meant that the common law was binding on equity. Auxiliary jurisdiction merely acted "as ancillary to
4050-446: The equitable jurisdiction. The transformation of these courts demonstrates the evolution of equity's doctrines and remedies, changes in its dominant nature and traits, and the influence of social and political environments on its operation and underlying issues in jurisprudence . Equity is currently recognized as a distinct body of law, administered by various modern courts. The evolution of procedures within courts of equity has guided
4125-432: The first to enact it in 1853. Corresponding Acts to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1873 (UK) include Supreme Court Act 1935 (SA) ss 17-28, Civil Proceedings Act 2011 ( Qld ) s 7, Supreme Court Act 1935 ( WA ) ss 24–25, Supreme Court Act 1986 ( Vic ) s 29, Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932 ( Tas ) ss 10–11, Supreme Court Act 1970 ( NSW ) ss 57–62 and Law Reform (Law and Equity) Act 1972 (NSW). Despite there being
4200-422: The incorrect court, the entire case must be brought again from the beginning. The administrative inefficiency created by the operation of separate courts became excessively onerous, that it demanded a comprehensive overhaul of the system. As a result of the post-judicature systems and Earl of Oxford's case (1615) allowing an overlapping of claims brought before the merged modern courts, equity would prevail over
4275-425: The interests of the public at large when providing or refusing relief to the plaintiff. In contrast to the rulings in the King's or Common Bench where the judgements are binding upon the rights of a party, equitable decrees only bind the person to obedience. Although the Chancellor has the authority to compel a person to punishment until they obey, the decree can also serve as a defence to future cases (regarding
4350-466: The jurisdiction within the courts experienced greater autonomy. This involved the Court of Chancery issuing decrees independently of the King's Council , the Chancellors becoming proficient in law, and a more systematized role in resolving petitions. As it developed into a substantive judicial court with increased power, other common law courts became wary and defensive towards their jurisdiction. The court
4425-401: The law in India, equitable principles were embedded in the judicial frameworks of the courts. The courts have relied on equity "as a source of law to devise a new principle in a situation where the statute or codified law had no answer to a given situation". The Supreme Court of India recognised this fusion of the law by further expanding the application of its equitable and remedial powers in
4500-477: The main purpose of this Act was to provide parties to a litigation "all remedies to which they are entitled". This prevents the need to recourse to another court and reduces the unnecessary profusion of legal proceedings . Prior to the enactments of the Judicature Acts, equity courts occupied a discrete jurisdiction to the common law. It was prohibited to transfer an action, and if proceedings were initiated in
4575-407: The medieval period (13th–15th centuries), the formative period (16th–17th centuries), and the period of systematization (17th–19th centuries). Throughout these periods, equity developed progressively from the Chancellor providing equitable relief based on personal conscience to an established and organized body of law governed by courts. The Chancery Division was established in the 13th century by
SECTION 60
#17328593749034650-430: The party who files an ex parte application must file a declaration showing compliance with these requirements, and no relief may be granted absent such declaration. In addition to the notice requirements, an ex parte application must contain an affirmative actual showing in a declaration based on personal knowledge of "irreparable harm, immediate danger, or any other statutory basis for granting relief ex parte". Before
4725-457: The person holding the prisoner to appear before the court to justify the prisoner's detention; no order requiring the freeing of a prisoner could be given until after the jailer was given the opportunity to contest the prisoner's claims at a hearing on the merits. State courts vary in their use of ex parte proceedings (for example, in custody cases, replevin cases and other civil matters), though most have it in one form or another. For example, in
4800-591: The presiding Chancellor or Vice Chancellor. The Court has the discretion to appoint an advisory jury if it so desires, but this power is practically never exercised. The Court of Chancery's decision can be appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court , whose decision is final unless appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States . The history of the Court of Chancery stems back to the English common law system, in which separate courts were established to hear law and equity matters. English law courts included
4875-435: The principles of equity were developed by and through the Chancery, and recognised three factors that influenced the evolution of such jurisdiction: antagonism to the rigidity of the common law; ideas about the function of conscience in determining equitable rules; and a procedure, distinct from that of common law, that allowed the chancellor to decide the most equitable course to take in each individual case. The passing of
4950-426: The purpose of enhancing just outcomes and to adequately judge the requirements of specific circumstances. As the jurisdiction of the equity courts evolved, it was no longer limited to the protection of prescribed rights and eventually took cognizance of cases not generally conforming with its jurisdiction – such as criminal cases. Given that defamation highly concerns personal rights, post-Judicature Act has allowed
5025-559: The reforms in New York and England. In its first Constitution, the Delaware Constitution of 1776 , there was no special provision for a court of equity. However, when the constitution was revised in the Delaware Constitution of 1792 a separate Court of Chancery was established. This constitution was heavily influenced by thinking of John Dickinson and George Read . William T. Quillen and Michael Hanrahan in their Short History of
5100-491: The request for judicial relief and an opportunity to be heard concerning the merits of such relief. A court order issued on the basis of an ex parte proceeding, therefore, will necessarily be de bene esse (temporary and interim in nature), and the person(s) affected by the order must be given an opportunity to contest the appropriateness of the order before it can be made permanent. There are exceptions to this. The secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court , which grants
5175-436: The same claim) in the Court of Chancery to provide a satisfactory reason why the Chancellor should not consider it again. As equity is perceived in an ethical context, the courts often encapsulate this as fair, moral, ethical and just conduct. As Aristotle highlighted, equitable conduct can be said to be just as it promotes the improvement of the deficiencies of the universal concept. He concludes that equity's role within
5250-432: The same relief issued at either. The requirement post-Judicature system allowed a claimant to attend only one court, rather than two, to enforce both the common law and equitable principles regarding the breach and remedy. Associated with new remedies, this jurisdiction empowers an applicant to pursue equitable relief where it can be established that the appropriate relief under common law is insufficient to do justice. There
5325-525: The state. The Court of Chancery handle corporate internal affairs litigation (such as shareholder disputes and merger disputes) according the Delaware General Corporation Law , the statute governing corporations in Delaware. As a result, it is a hub for corporate litigation in the United States. The chief judge is called the Chancellor, and the other six judges are called Vice Chancellors. The chancellor and vice chancellors are nominated by
5400-482: The validity of writs issued in courts and permitting only those in consimili casu . These were enforced temporarily and could be overridden by the courts of law if deemed to conflict with the actual law of the land . As the administrative operations of the division expanded through its implicit control of the King's residual influence, the Chancellor became responsible for addressing "prayers" and "petitions", including letters of remedy, relief, and grants on behalf of
5475-442: Was defined by Ashburner as: The claim of the plaintiff was one which before the Judicature Act would have given him no right whatever against the defendant in any court but the Court of Chancery, and the court of Chancery, in granting relief was said to exercise its exclusive jurisdiction. Concurrent jurisdiction recognises situations where the facts in a pleading brought by a party produces both common law and equity actions, with
5550-489: Was one of specific jurisdiction with distinct procedures compared to common law courts, such as the Court of Chancery issuing a common injunction rather than common law injunctive relief . The systemisation of equity is often credited to Lord Eldon and the introduction of the Judicature Acts in 1873. He rationalized the rules and principles found in modern equity today, to provide enhanced consistency and certainty. As
5625-434: Was the solution. There was one chancellor, appointed by the governor for life. There was one chancellor, appointed by the governor for life. There is one chancellor, appointed by the governor for a 12-year term. There were also created over the years, additional vice chancellors, the first in 1939, a second in 1961, a third in 1984, and a fourth in 1989. Since 2018, there are six vice chancellors. They are also appointed by
#902097