Equity and Administrative Behaviour: A Commentary

Peter Turner (ed) Equity and Administration (Cambridge University Press 2016) pp 367-379; ISBN: 978-1107142732

13 Pages Posted: 2 Apr 2019

Date Written: October 1, 2016

Abstract

Professor Henry Smith argues against judicial exercise of a general ‘fix-it’ equity. He argues that a narrower ‘anti-opportunism’ equity can be seen at work in the processes and remedies and substantive standards of United States administrative law. In a response to his article in this collection of essays, I endorse his caution about ‘broad ex post’ attempts to do justice. I argue that the core of English administrative law developed at common law rather than at equity, that the fiduciary principle developed in Chancery has no general role to play in administrative law, and that Professor Smith’s narrow anti-opportunism version of equity remains in tension with the rule of law.

Keywords: equity, administrative law, common law, judicial review

Suggested Citation

Endicott, Timothy A.O., Equity and Administrative Behaviour: A Commentary (October 1, 2016). Peter Turner (ed) Equity and Administration (Cambridge University Press 2016) pp 367-379; ISBN: 978-1107142732 . Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3349732 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3349732

Timothy A.O. Endicott (Contact Author)

University of Oxford - Faculty of Law ( email )

St. Cross Building
St. Cross Road
Oxford, OX1 3UJ
United Kingdom

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
21
Abstract Views
191
PlumX Metrics