Melbourne Law School - Theses

Permanent URI for this collection

http://hdl.handle.net/11343/383

Filters

1994 1
1
1
Reset filters

Settings
Statistics
Citations
Start date: 1990 × End date: 1999 × Subject: common law × Type: Masters Research thesis ×

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Item
    Thumbnail Image
    Fusion development between law and equity
    Hepburn, Samantha ( 1994)
    This thesis attempts to present a structured definition of the concept of fusion in a modern legal environment. It examines the forces and influences which have encouraged and shaped fusion developments and goes on to consider the manifestations of actual and potential fusions occurring in a variety of different legal and equitable doctrines. The recognition and acceptance of fusion does not necessarily signify the automatic destruction of all jurisdictional distinctions between law and equity and it is hoped that a systematic analysis of what fusion refers to and how it is evidenced within our legal infrastructure will allay this fear. Fusion is literally defined as a close union of things. The intimacy of this union is variable; it can range from a complete blending of two separate objects to a close interaction between those objects. When considering fusion in the context of the growing intimacy between the common law and equity jurisdiction, the same principles apply. There are different measures of fusion which are continually occurring between legal and equitable doctrines and not all fusion involves a complete meltdown of jurisdictional distinctions. Some fusion simply encourages a change in attitude or approach to a principle. This sort of fusion is an interactive rather than a merging fusion because it influences related doctrines instead of subsuming them. Some of the main jurisdictional difficulties encountered within a modern Judicature system are increasingly being addressed through fusion developments. Common concerns experienced by the courts include the perpetuation of doctrinal and discretionary inconsistencies between law and equity which are outdated and unnecessary and the artificial imposition of jurisdictional constraints in the application of remedy. Fusion can offer a rationalised, interactive alternative to strict jurisdictional segregation thereby providing a viable method for the resolution of these concerns. The difficulty in implementing fusion stems, however, from a lack of understanding about the nature of consequences of the concept. If fusion is constantly perceived to be an absolute merger rather than a discrete integrating process then inevitably any reference to fusion will be considered radical and unjustified. (From Introduction)