For more information on justice, check out this ARTICLE from UCLA Law Review, this article from the University of Michigan Law Review, and this article from the Berkley Law Review. This maxim is also expressed as “aequitas sequitur legem”, which means that justice does not allow a remedy based on the rule of law. This maxim states that equity complements the law and does not replace it. The court`s discretion is governed by law and equity, which are subordinate to each other. Wherever the law can be followed, it must be followed. In cases where the law is not specifically applicable, this maxim is subject to a restriction. But in today`s England and Wales, the law follows justice. Section 49 (1) of the Higher Courts Act 1981 clearly states that in the event of a conflict between the rule of law and equity, equity prevails. Litigants began to defend themselves against the unjust decisions of the common law courts by petitioning the King. These petitions were first dealt with by the King`s Counsel, which itself was quite revised, and the Council began to delegate the hearing of these petitions to the Lord Chancellor.  This delegation is often justified by the fact that the Lord Chancellor was literally the guardian of the King`s conscience. Although Francis Palgrave argued that the delegation was initially motivated by practical concerns and that moral justification came later.  In the 14th century, it appears that the Chancery acted as a tribunal and granted remedies for which strict common law procedures seemed unfair or did not provide recourse to a deserving plaintiff.
Chancellors often had a theological and clerical background and were familiar with Roman law and canon law.   During this period, the Roman concept of the Aequitas influenced the development of the english concept of justice markedly different but related: “Equity managed by the first English chancellors. [was] confessably borrowed from the Aequitas and the judicial powers of the Roman judges.  In the 15th century, the judicial power of the Chancery was clearly recognized. In search of a general understanding of the word justice, the Oxford Dictionary describes it as “the quality of being just and impartial.” This is probably too vague a definition for legal purposes and gives a characteristic personal explanation that makes justice appear as a way, not as something that society wants to achieve. CiteZ APA 7 M, E. (2011, September 23). Difference between law and justice.
Difference between similar terms and objects. www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/political-institutions/difference-between-law-and-equity/. Member of Parliament 8 M, Emelda. “Difference between law and justice.” Difference between similar terms and objects, September 23, 2011, www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/politics/political-institutions/difference-between-law-and-equity/. Fairness is a special law developed by the English Court of Chancery.  It exists in domestic law, both civil and common law, and in international law.  The tradition of justice begins in antiquity with the writings of Aristotle (epieikeia) and with Roman law (aequitas).   Later, in civil law systems, fairness was integrated into legal norms, while in common law systems, it became an independent legal body.  In the United States today, federal courts and most state courts have merged law and justice into courts of general jurisdiction, such as district courts. However, the substantive distinction between law and justice has retained its former vitality.
 This difference is not a mere formality, as the successful handling of some legal cases is difficult, if not impossible, unless an injunction or injunction is issued in advance to prevent someone from escaping jurisdiction and, for example, removing only available property to satisfy a judgment. In addition, some laws, such as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, explicitly only allow for fair legal protection, which requires U.S. courts to consider in detail whether this would have been available in fairness in certain cases required by those laws.  This tension came to a head in the case of the Earl of Oxford (1615), where a judgment of Chief Justice Coke was allegedly obtained by fraud.  The Lord Chancellor, Lord Ellesmere, issued an injunction from the Chancellery prohibiting the application of the common law order. The two courts fell into a stalemate, and the case was eventually referred to Attorney General Sir Francis Bacon. Sir Francis, with the authority of King James I, confirmed the application of the just order and concluded that in the event of a conflict between common law and equity, justice would prevail.  The primacy of fairness in England was then enshrined in the Judicature Acts of the 1870s, which also served to merge the courts of equity and common law (but explicitly not the systems themselves) into a single judicial system.
In CIGNA v. Amara, 563 U.S. 421 (2011), the Supreme Court ruled that in the event of a violation of ERISA, the injured party may have the right to “obtain other appropriate remedies” in addition to remedies. In der Rechtssache Montanile v. Bd. von Trs. von Nat`l Elevator Indus. Health Benefit Plan, 577 U.S. __ (2016), the Supreme Court limited the scope of fair remedies for violations of ERISA. In Montanile, the Court held that a party seeking a fair remedy under ERISA is limited to the legal protection normally available in the context of equity.
As requested by ERISA, equitable legal protection does not extend to a plaintiff who applies a “lien under equity law over the defendant`s general assets.” For a brief overview of the maxims, doctrines and remedies developed within the framework of fairness: In jurisdictions that follow the English common law system, fairness is the set of rules developed in the English Court of Chancery that is now administered at the same time as the common law.  In common law jurisdictions, the word “justice” is “not synonymous with general fairness” or “natural justice,” but refers to “a particular set of rules that originates in a particular system of courts.”  Fairness allows courts to apply case law on the basis of natural law and its discretion. Whenever there is disagreement about the application of the common law, justice is applied. The clearest difference between law and justice lies in the solutions they offer. One can feel that one can see that the answer to what justice is is in fact consciousness. The eyes of the law are human eyes. The law is made, interpreted and put into practice by the legislator, so that what society considers or understands as evil, regardless of the awareness that the judiciary has or uses through maxims, would be just. Justice would not suffice without recognizing a person`s false thoughts or actions, and thus making conscience the defining principle of justice. The state of New South Wales is particularly known for the strength of its corporation jurisdiction.
However, it was not until 1972, with the introduction of the reform of the Supreme Court (NSW) Act 1970, which allowed the Equity and Common Law Divisions of the Supreme Court of New South Wales to grant relief in equity or common law.  In 1972, New South Wales also adopted one of the essential sections of judicial reforms, which emphasized that in cases of conflict between common law and fairness, justice always took precedence.  Nevertheless, in 1975, three former students of the Sydney Law School and judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Roderick Meagher, William Gummow and John Lehane, produced Equity: Doctrines & Remedies. .