In assessing what justice is, all the readings and documents on the subject show that justice has a direct link with conscience, justice and equity. As early as 1452, it was proposed „that we discuss here conscience, not the law“. Therefore, it is important to see if justice is consciousness and what is the difference between the three principles. It has been established that consciousness means „the conscience of a person or good or evil in relation to his own thoughts and actions“, making conscience the action that allows judges to deal with the issue, where justice and fairness can be seen as the final result and purpose of the law, and even more so justice as a whole. First, fairness has upheld rights that common law courts have not enforced; Second, fairness has led to the development of other common law remedies to uphold common law rights. Finally, the procedure before the common law courts was flawed, in particular it is not mandatory or allows a defendant to testify, and limiting the investigation to action. [5] In any court, whether in equity or otherwise, a case or issue can be characterized as fair. As a general rule, this means that the discharge requested by the applicant is not a cash bonus. Whether a fair remedy is granted is left to the discretion of the judge. In contrast, other civil actions theoretically give rise to a prescribed remedy (usually monetary damages) from a judge or jury if the evidence renders the defendant incapable of dismissing the plaintiff`s case. After looking at the different types of definitions, the problem they all have is that they all have very close ties to justice, which makes the definition of justice itself very confusing. It should not be forgotten that this is only a legal definition and that justice refers to many other issues such as health and not just the law.
However, for legal reasons, these definitions have too much or too little meaning. How can definitions based on „principles“ be sufficient if someone reading them is not aware of what „principles of natural justice“ really are? This would not allow a clear understanding, which would lead to inaccuracies. If justice is to be universally understood because it can be used by society, the definition must ensure that individuals can understand it. Unreasonable delay outweighs fairness. However, legal or equitable claims to which the limitation periods expressly apply or in accordance with the maxim „delay against equity“ do not apply. In such cases, a delay, insofar as it is within the legal deadline, will not cancel a claim. It has also been argued that because justice and conscience are there to stop unscrupulous results, justice could also have a moral basis. The concept of equality and its moral foundation can be seen through Lord Ellesmere`s speech in the case of the Earl of Oxford [1615] 1 Ch Rep 1, „the conscience of men for deception, breaths of trust, injustice and oppression … And to soften and appease the member of the law. The moral basis here is that the purpose of justice is to prevent people from acting wrongly and unfairly exploiting situations; This moral basis is now reflected in just maxims such as „Equity Acts in Personam“.
Moreover, it can be argued, from Lord Ellesmere`s quote, that justice has more to do with the actions of society. This means that justice is more concerned with what societies do as morally evil than with the thought process, their consciousness, which follows. Justice focuses on what is morally right and wrong in the eyes of the law, while the law determines what is legally just and what is wrong. 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. One criticism of the practice of the enterprise as it developed in the early Middle Ages was that there were no fixed rules and that the Lord Chancellor exercised unlimited discretion. The counter-argument was that justice softened the rigour of the common law by relying on substance rather than form. In jurisdictions that follow the English common law system, fairness is the set of rules developed by the English Court of Chancery and now administered at the same time as the common law. [3] 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.“ [4] The provision of the specific reparation law concerning injunction, annulment, correction and recession, etc. to recognize the principles of justice on a large scale. [19] The directives given by foreign courts in the interpretation and application of the provisions of Indian law are therefore of particular importance. EQUITY, COURT OF. A court of justice is a court that exercises justice, when there are no legal rights or legal rights, but the courts do not offer a full remedy and the plaintiff also has a just right.
Empty Chancellery. Article 19, paragraph 1, of the Constitution of the People`s Republic of Bangladesh has been expressly included in the „Maxim of Justice“. The maxim of justice is applied in the era of the administration of justice as in England. Where customary law is insufficient, the law of equity functions as an auxiliary law to customary law. The maxim of justice in the Court of England will be applied in the Court of Bangladesh subject to the necessary changes. EQUITY. At the beginning of the history of law, the meaning given to this word was extremely vague and uncertain. This was due in part to the fact that the chancellors of the time were either statesmen or clerics, perhaps not very conscientious in the exercise of power. .