FUSION OF COMMON LAW N EQUITY

The object of supreme court was to enable equity and common law to be administered under the newly established supreme court of judicature-took over the jurisdiction of chancery court and common law courts-3 division

1. Quenns bench2. Probate,divorce and admiralty3. Chancery

Both common law and equitable remedies can be awrded by any division-supreme court merged the administration of the 2 system-debate whether the sysytems have been fused into one

Ashburner in principles of equity

- The two streams of jurisdiction though they run in the same channel, run side by side and do not mingle their waters

Lord diplock-united scientific holdings

- The innate conversatism of English lawyers may have made them to recognize that by scja, the two systems of subjective and adjectival law formerly administered by courts of law and chancery courts were fused

The prevailing view appears to be that although the two systems operate closely together they are not fused – scja provided for what was happened in cases where equity and common law conflicted. Sec 25(11) scja states that equity shall prevail

Walsh v Lonsdale

RECEPTION

- The extension of English legal principle to ceded or conquered territories.

Statutory

- 1st royal- directs that the court shall in deciding civil cases give judgement according to justice and right

- 2nd royal- extended the English law that applied in penang to Malacca- 3rd royal- repealed the second charter only to extent necessary to recognized the court

of judicature- Trustee act- Specific relief act- Law reform act- Civil law act- Sec 3(1)- common law , rules of equity and statutes of general application shallbe

applied so far only as the circumstances of the states of Malaysia and their respective inhabitants permits and subject to such qualifications as local render necessary

JUDICIAL RECEPTION- The court in Malaysia firmly held that the view that they had the widest possible

jurisdiction to do justice between the parties by appliying principles of natural justice and equity.

1. Maxim of equity applied- Khoo hock leong v lim ang kee- In an action for the recovery of land, court found that the plaintiff was entitled to

recover possession but also found that the defendant inhonest belief that the land was his spent money on the improvements to it. Court applied the maxim he who seek equity must do equity andordered the defendant to be compensated for his improvements

2. Bare trust- Once a contract for sale of land is concluded the vendor becomes in equity a trustee

for the purchaser eventhough delivery of possession or transfer of titlehasnot taken place.well established in Malaysian courts

- Ong chat pang v valiappa chettiar