Editing Equity (law) (section)

===United Kingdom===

==== England and Wales ====
Equity remains a distinct part of the [[English law|law]] of [[England and Wales]]. The main challenge to it has come from academic writers working within the [[English unjust enrichment law|law of unjust enrichment]]. Scholars such as [[Peter Birks]] and [[Andrew Burrows]] argue that in many cases the inclusion of the label "legal" or "equitable" before a substantive rule is often unnecessary.<ref name="Burrows"/> Many English universities, such as [[University of Oxford|Oxford]] and [[University of Cambridge|Cambridge]], continue to teach Equity as a standalone subject. Leading practitioner texts include ''Snell's Equity'', ''Lewin on Trusts'', and ''Hayton & Underhill's Law of Trusts and Trustees''.

Limits on the power of equity in English law were clarified by the [[Judicial functions of the House of Lords|House of Lords]] in ''The Scaptrade'' case (''Scandinavian Trading Tanker Co. A.B. v Flota Petrolera Ecuatoriana'' [1983] 2 AC 694, 700), where the notion that the court's jurisdiction to grant relief was "unlimited and unfettered" (per [[Lord Simon of Glaisdale]] in ''Shiloh Spinners Ltd v. Harding'' [1973] A.C. 691, 726) was rejected as a "beguiling heresy".<ref>Lord Hoffman, in [https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1997/5.html ''Union Eagle Limited v. Golden Achievement Limited (Hong Kong)''] [1997] UKPC 5, delivered 3 February 1997, accessed 13 July 2023</ref>

==== Scotland ====

The [[courts of Scotland]] have never recognised a division between the normal [[common law]] and equity, and as such the [[Court of Session]] (the supreme [[civil law (common law)|civil court]] of [[Scotland]]) has exercised an equitable and [[inherent jurisdiction]] and called the {{lang|la|[[nobile officium]]}}.<ref name="thomson">{{cite book|last=Thomson |first=Stephen |year=2015 |title=The Nobile Officium: The Extraordinary Equitable Jurisdiction of the Supreme Courts of Scotland| location=Edinburgh| publisher=Avizandum | isbn=978-1904968337}}</ref> The {{lang|la|nobile officium}} enables the Court to provide a [[legal remedy]] where [[statute]] or the [[common law]] are silent, and prevent mistakes in procedure or practice that would lead to [[injustice]]. The exercise of this power is limited by adherence to [[precedent]], and when [[Primary and secondary legislation|legislation]] or the common law already specify the relevant remedy. Thus, the Court cannot set aside a [[statutory power]], but can deal with situations where the law is silent, or where there is an omission in statute. Such an omission is sometimes termed a {{lang|la|casus improvisus}}.<ref name="nobile_officium">{{Cite web|url=https://www.nobileofficium.com/nobile-officium-used-to-recognise-english-high-court-orders-due-to-statutory-casus-improvisus/|title=Nobile officium used to recognise English High Court orders due to statutory casus improvisus |website=The Nobile Officium|language=en-GB|access-date=11 May 2017}}{{dead link|date=February 2024|bot=medic}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=White|first=J. R. C.|date=1981|title=A Brief Excursion into the Scottish Legal System|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/holdslr6&collection=journals&id=159&startid=&endid=165|journal=Holdsworth Law Review|publisher=University of Birmingham|volume=6|issue=2|pages=155–161|url-access=subscription }}</ref>