Talk:English law/Archive 1

message: This article appears to contain a number of inaccuracies:
* there is, strictly speaking, no such thing as English law, just the law of England and Wales. The title of the article should reflect this.
* the article conflates English law with common law. The two are not one and the same. The law of England and Wales is composed of common law, equity, statute law, EU law etc. English law can be described as a "common law" system, which is perhaps where the confusion comes from.
* to say "European Union Law is effective in the UK" is a misleading over-simplification.
I'll correct this in a few days if nobody objects.
BobTheLawyer 22:14, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that English law is not right, but English and Welsh law isn't right either -- it implies there are two separate jurisdictions. The usual form is "the Law of England and Wales". Could you change to that title (obviously with a sensible redirect). Francis Davey 19:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Historically, the law was not derived from a Parliament (sitting wherever) but the common law developed by the courts. Now the fact is that England and Wales have a single legal system, where judges follow (and are bound to follow) each other's decisions. This has the effect that the law is identical in both countries except where a statute or rule explicitly makes them different (and even then they will be subject to the same rules of interpretation). Scots law has a completely different historical background and also is adminstered by different courts. That's why it is treated as a separate system. Even where the same law (i.e. statute or regulation) exists in both countries because it was passed by the UK Parliament, the courts in England and Wales might take a different view of its meaning to those in Scotland. Francis Davey 12:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the usage "English law" is hard to defend, although it is difficult to persuade people to replace a short term by a longer one. However it is pretty much universal as a way of describing that law that operates in England and Wales. In other words, it is not only the common term, but the academically accepted term for the law in my jurisdiction. I am called to the Bar of England and Wales, but I practice in English law. What you are suggesting -- and I have a lot of sympathy for it -- is that the title of this article ought to be altered to reflect the way that the term ought to be applied not the way the language is used. I'm not sure wikipedia is the right place or way to do that. The article title reflects usage, right or wrong. Note also, English law is a single system of law with historical roots in England only. An article on "the law of england and wales" would not correctly cover the period before the laws in Wales acts. Those acts extended English law to cover Wales as well. Its also important to understand that the particular bodies that pass statutory laws that cover a jurisdiction are irrelevant. We are all governed by law from many sources, those sources don't define the legal system in operation, which is more fundamental. As I said, England and Wales have the same law, though there may be different particular rules in different places (within either part as well as between the two). The fact that statutes are passed by this or that body has no relevance. Scots law did not become more Scots with the creation of the Scottish Parliament (or for that matter less Scots with the abolition of the Scots Parliament way back when). Francis Davey 19:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Law of England and Wales

message: I note that the introductory paragraph to the EU Study on the International Law of Succession on page 1 to [] counts six states (abeit that it uses the word jurisdictions), separating Jersey and Guerney citing Dicey & Morris on the Conflict of Laws as their authority. From the POV of Jersey, the Explanatory Notes on the Probate (Jersey) Law 1998, The Probate (General Provision) (Jersey) Regulations 1998 and The Probate (General) (Jersey) Rules, 1998 require a definition of "abroad" to "the Island" (i.e. Jersey). The jurisdictions specified for the purposes of Article 6 (7) have been specified under the Regulations and these are the other parts of the British Isles, namely, England and Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and Guernsey (i.e. five other states). I have asked an ex-colleague of mine to photocopy the relevant pages from some real hard-copy books on Conflict for me. As soon as these are to hand, I will cite chapter and verse to support my assertion that there are five or six states within the composite state for constitutional and public international law purposes (depending on how you count the Bailiwicks). Until then, I have left the page with only the one state iderntified because, to date, that is the only on-line verified source I have identified (good to see an American on the ball whereas the Brits will not get themselves on line to confirm this notorious (in the legal sense of the word) piece of information. David91 12:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better.  Note, I've all along perfectly been happy to note that there are seven different jurisdictions in the British Isles (counting the Republic of Ireland and Guernsey and Jersey), so your first link shows absolutely nothing that I haven't accepted, and in fact demonstrates that the term 'jurisdiction' is preferred in modern usage (in my view probably because of the confusion this causes).  Morwen - Talk 14:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Reading the reference fully, I note that section 2.5 of Beale is directly relevant to this.  It acknowledges that the term "state" is unsatisfactory due to its ambiguity (having previously referred to the entities described as "legal units"), and even considers inventing a new term, but decides that other terms would be worse.  Morwen - Talk 15:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I have now included all the information sent to me. I leave it to all of you to decide whether you want to cut and paste the other definitional elements to the separate pages on the U.K., etc. I am sorry that Dicey and Morris are one of the confusing sets of authors that elect to use "country" rather than "state". Just adds to the confusion that non-lawyers feel when approaching this topic. We are all talking about the same thing,merely using different words to do it. So there you have the black letters. I have other things to get on with so you can all have fun deciding whether this is what the law ought to be saying. David91 16:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How many states?

message: Can anyone guide me in this famous case law "Salomon vs Salomon Co. Ltd.", which decided that an individual and a company are seperate entities.
I want the exact judgement given in House Of Lords, and the true name of this case law.
:See Salomon v. Salomon & Co. Shimgray | talk | 17:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salomon vs Salomon Co. Ltd. 

message: take a look at the equivalent article for N.ireland. although very little context is given it is far better organised and professional, and critically to an encyclo, its easy to find and understand the info. anyone want to copy some of its features here?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 (talk) 22:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: quality and organisation of this article

message: This article, as it currently stands, makes almost no effort whatsoever to reliably establish the notability of its topic, as per WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS and WP:CITE. This is, quite frankly, astounding, as English law is so central to the history of law worldwide. In fact, it is hard to underestimate the extent of the influence of English law.
The intro is absolutely appalling. It seems like an attempt to grossly downplay the subject, and the whole first half of the article tries to explain what English law is not, rather than what it is!!
I am certain that there are many people out there with profound knowledge of the English legal system. Please could one of you at least write a decent, perhaps 3 paragraph, introduction to the topic, preferably properly cited. And please relegate the long, apologetic bit about "and Wales" to an explanatory subsection - it is not central to grasping the topic.-- Mais oui! 08:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And setting the topic in a solid historical context early in the piece would be nice too. Sorry to be so grumpy, but I really find the condition of this article to be truly lamentable, after Wikipedia has been up and running for many years now. We ought to at least aim to bring it up to WP:GA status, although WP:FA seems a million miles away at present. -- Mais oui! 08:52, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: this phrase was used from at least 1967 onwards, prior to that there was a law saying any mention of england included wales.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: can the name be changed to "The Law of England and Wales"??

message: this section seems to contain some thing of value ie a couple of refs even if not done correctly although some of the stuff there seems meandering and tangential and vague and shouldnt be this high in the article even if in... but i dont want to remove anything without putting better in place, so i haven't done much to it, you are right it needs  a thorough reworking. i have tried to quickly remove some blatant innacuracies ie that stating that there are four jurisdictions in the uk england scotland northern ireland and wales.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.221.233 (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: English law as a jurisdiction

message: I think that prehaps we should move it to British Law, and have Welsh, Scottish & NI law, if needed, as a subtopic under British Law, keeping the main focus on English law. microchip08 (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes no sense to me at all. Scottish and English legal systems are quite distinct in many ways, what is the practical use of having a single topic about both? English law is closer to the law of Australia/Canada etc and even the USA than it is to that of Scotland, so if we are grouping that woudl be wrong. Very little law is "British" in any useful sense (Employment law is mostly GB wide and Immigration law UK wide, but those are exceptions, EU law is after all EU wide). There is no separate "Welsh" legal system. There are regulations that apply only to Wales (and now most of these are made by the Welsh Ministers) but that doesn't mean its a separate jurisdiction. Can you explain this odd suggestion? Francis Davey 16:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. "British law" is a legal nonsense. Besides, an article encompassing the three jurisdictions comprised within the UK already exists here. Ravenseft (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Francis Davey & Ravenseft, removing move template since there is no consensus --Lox (t,c) 10:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

text: i can't take that seriously ! removing English law to british!! lets remove it to korean! i agree with you all except the proposer82.27.221.233 (talk) 21:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Definitely English common law, even in the USA.125.237.105.102 (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  English/British 

message: One of the reasons I suspect that England has had a rough relationship with the Roman Catholic Church is the lack of compatibility between English law and Roman law, the latter of which forms the basis for RC canon law. Many of the debates that led to the English Reformation were seemingly related to this issue, such as the canonical refusal to grant a divorce to the king, which many viewed at the time as an encroachment on the much praised Anglo-Saxon codes of law. Similar issues have also come up with American law, which was long invoked to justify a peculiar religious particularism in the United States with regards to its attitude towards Rome. ADM (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: @ADM Interesting observation, one seemingly, based on reliable sources, should we add the details maybe? Twobellst@lk 14:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: English law vs. Roman law

message: The 1189 date in this section refers specifically to Glanvill's Tractatus; saying so might be more meaningful than a bare mention of the date (or perhaps not). Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But not 11 years (at least not in England). Its complicated because a long period of use might allow a court to deduce that a right was exercised since time immemorial and therefore was a customary right (eg a right to take coal from the shore) but more recently in a specific and restricted set of rights, 20 years use has allowed a court to presume there was a grant of that right. The difference is important since proof that a right wasn't exercised more than 20 years ago would defeat a claim to a customary right, but not to a presumption of modern grant or to statutory forms of prescription. And its actually more involved than that (thinking about it) since public and private rights are different in various ways. A good example of where it doesn't work is (say) 20 years of driving over a common where that driving would be criminal - no right of way comes into being. Francis Davey (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no such legal doctrine. I firmly believe that only those who have studied English common law at university have the right or ability to discuss it. You are out of your depth, sir.125.237.105.102 (talk) 10:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common law 

message: I was quite surprised to find little or no mention of juries in this article, even though they are a constitutional component of English Law ( e.g. the Magna Carta, Bill of Right). Legal summaries written for students of law often omit mention of the Common Law role of juries but there is no reason for us to do so. Someone might like to begin a paragraph. Meanwhile, the rules on 'binding' decisions or law clearly don't apply to juries, who can assert their rights to act against direction and, in certain cases, make decisions according to their consciences and natural justice rather than statute. I have therefore placed juries in their proper place in the general descriptions. Cacadores (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This wouldn't possibly be because juries sit to determine facts and not law!? — Blue-Haired Lawyer t 22:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what legislators and judges want you to believe, but their historic role included advising circuit judges on local law. —Tamfang (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Law and Juries 

message: I am uncertain whether the following issue is covered and therefore brought to attention by the Refimprove template. References numbered 1, 2 and 4 are all invalid links that lead to non existant web pages. Jake (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the importance of this subject the fact there are no references is amazing. Some of what should be references are shown as notes. If nobody objects I will change them to references where appropriate.CSDarrow (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: From which date does a case law take effect? Is it from the day of the judgment, or from the date the case was filed, or from some other date? 86.183.80.209 (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some exceptions to the general principle, but a judgment that decides a question of law is treated (in theory at least) as declaring what the law is, and therefore what the law always was. As a result almost all such judgments take effect retrospectively. While judges in English courts do talk about "changing" or "reforming" the law, that almost never affects the basic principle of retrospective effect. Francis Davey (talk) 16:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your answer. So if you had a case found against you 20 years ago in a lower court but did not appeal, whereas someone 20 years later in a similar case appealed to the highest court and won, then there is a procedure to reverse the judgment from 20 years ago? 86.180.53.189 (talk) 02:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, no. But its a complicated "it depends" kind of question. Appeals almost invariably have time limits. If you are out of time you cannot appeal, however good your case. However there are very often powers for the appeal court involved to extend the time on various grounds. It is sometimes possible to have even quite short time limits extend over very long periods of years. The subject matter is quite important, in English law there are mechanisms to have serious criminal convictions overturned a very long time after the conviction, but a very minor civil judgment against an individual would be treated as a much less serious matter. So normally if you didn't appeal, then you are almost certainly out of time and out of luck. Really its no different from having an incorrect decision made by a court - you have to appeal within a certain time. Francis Davey (talk) 10:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  From what date does a case law take effect? 

message: When was the first ethnic & minority rights (culture education political language rights) declared in England? Don't confuse it with immigration and citizenship laws/acts! Can you write me? Many Thanks! mail: stears333@gmail.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.100.11 (talk) 07:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: First ethnic & minority rights in England

message: I've added a "citation needed" tag to the following:
:For example, there is no statute making murder illegal. It is a common law crime - so although there is no written Act of Parliament making murder illegal, it is illegal by virtue of the constitutional authority of the courts and their previous decisions. Common law can be amended or repealed by Parliament; murder, by way of example, carries a mandatory life sentence today, but had previously allowed the death penalty.
In addition it could use a rewrite by whoever finds a source for the claim. At present it seems to imply that the repeal of the death penalty for murder was statute law replacing common law, but that's in contradiction with Offences against the Person Act 1861#Homicide. 95.19.216.78 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The death penalty for murder pre-existed the Homicide Act (and goes way back). So there's no contradiction. The statement is entirely correct in substance (though one would not normally talk about the "constitutional authority of the courts"). The only difficulty is that the death penalty for murder may pre-exist the court system as we know it. Francis Davey (talk) 12:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

text: I have no idea what this paragraph even means, but the "common law" says no such thing. Such an extraordinary claim might require some evidence. Francis Davey (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

text: The usual definition is that of Coke (who was long before either the Law Reports or the Weekly Law Reports) and he was merely summarising what had long been understood. I don't know of any coherent legal system that doesn't treat murder as an offence. Certainly murder was a crime when the Normans arrived. The boundaries of that understanding have been elaborated by the courts and also altered by statute (eg the year and a day principle). Francis Davey (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murder 

message: I think the article Misuse of private information in English law should be merged with this article. Please give your view here. aηsuмaη  ༽Ϟ 14:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that doesn't sound the right place to put it (its barely a stub at the moment). Its really too specific to go here - maybe it could be expanded or merged into breach of privacy or breach of confidence or somewhere like that. Francis Davey (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

text: No. (Its already covered by tort and contract.) And that wiki article is innacurate anyway and should be removed or merged with one of the two mentioned above. --phazakerley (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge 

message: Please take a look at 
Costs (let such link load fully before starting to navigate, because that loading will jump you to the subsection at issue).  The subsection at issue has several '[confirm]' tags, and your quick review could be very helpful.  If a given assertion seems correct then you could just delete the '[confirm]' tag, and add no supporting source/footnote.  Bo99 (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  review requested; it's easy probably 

message: I removed a chunk of material from the lede which included the theory that Parliament has no authority to change the common law and also some very misleading remarks about the role played by juries in the development of English law (given that jury trial is extremely rare in civil justice, it would be hard to believe that juries could have any real influence over its development). The material represented an extreme view of law that is (i) historically incorrect and misunderstands the role of common law in the past (ii) not an accurate reflection of how English law actually behaves even if it is what the author would like to be true. Francis Davey (talk) 09:44, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between Common law and civil law is said to be that there has been "no major codification of the law has taken place and judicial precedents are binding as opposed to persuasive". That is not entirely correct. Common law is actually so defined as being distinct from ecclesiastical law, not civil law. Civil law was not part of the English system.125.237.105.102 (talk) 10:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed edits to the lede on the common law 

message: What on earth is going on? Why has Wales taken over the lede and opening paragraphs of English law? Twobellst@lk 13:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seemingly because of these edits, which no-one picked up at the time.  Some restoration work needed.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, I've moved all the edits out of the lede where they had taken over the article and given the Welsh entries their own prominent section within the article, however, I am unsure was to whether I have given the section too much prominence seeing as the article is on English common law, regards. Twobellst@lk 14:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's important to recognise that "English" common law is the system that also applies in Wales, so it is appropriate to give it some weight, to resolve any confusion among readers.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wales, Wales Wales? 

message: There is a danger that, anyone who does not know about this topic, would read this article and assume that Wales is subject to the law made in and by England. When in reality, the law is English and Welsh and is made in and by both equally and has been since 1536.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.128.195 (talk) 17:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please suggest specific changes to the wording that you would like to see, with reliable sources as necessary.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 18:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Wales question 

message: There is nothing in this article that supports "Other less crucial areas of English law include martial law and ecclesiastical law". Qexigator (talk) 23:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Well adding "martial law" is incorrect because it refers to , something that hasn’t happened in England since 1648. I suspect what is being referred to is military justice, which is a different issue. Green Giant (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This first line of the lead reads "English law is the common law legal system governing England and Wales, comprising mainly criminal law and civil law. This is a truism and no-one bothers to call it original research. It is also a truism that there are two other English procedures/systems as I have (twice) indicated. Canon law is no longer mainstream, but in the 19th century it held sway over divorce and nullity of marriage.  It is also true that "imposing military rule in a country"is one meaning of "martial law"; but its secondary meaning of "martial law"  (along with its tribunals which are "courts martial") is synonymous with military law. (I hesitate to call it "military justice"). Note, by the way, that a Wikilink is NOT necessarily a source, but is scope for further information. I will amend the wording, but to continue to deny that canon law and military law is part of English law is to be obtuse.Arrivisto (talk) 10:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead should be written as a summary or abstract of the main content, and that content should be duly sourced. There is no problem in stating the principal division of the English legal system (as most other modern legal systems) as of criminal and civil. "Mainstream" is unclear. These are certainly not recognised or written about as "divisions of English law". There is nothing in the article to explain what is meant. The note is not helpfully informative. Please check more thoroughly the leading and specialist standard textbooks. What is the jurisdiction today of any ecclesiastical court in England, to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of the law courts generally, or any military court, other than in respect of the Church of England or in respect of the armed services of the Crown? They are comparable with municipal byelaws or the law of town planning. Qexigator (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't accept all your criticisms, butI have shifted the text to which you object to "See Also". I am aware of the issues of Original Research and Proper Sourcing, thanks; but note that before I added several sources this rather long article had a mere five sources, yet no editors seemed perturbed by this startling lack of citations!Arrivisto (talk) 12:00, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the changes to the lead. With the query above, you appear to be confusing two overlapping but distinct concepts. Ordinarily, military law is for military personnel, wartime situations, civilians intruding on bases etc. Martial law is a political change by which the civilian population is subjugated to military rule. What I said above was incorrect in that it has not happened since 1648, but there have been martial-type laws such as during WWII. I don’t agree with including these two (military and church) in a reference until it is also clarified in the lead that there is more to it than just a criminal/civil divide. There is a good reason that a qualifying law degree requires modules in seven areas (administrative/public, criminal, contract, tort, land/property, EU, and equity). It is unclear why military and ecclesiastical law are more important than those seven. Green Giant (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Q. "A qualifying law degree requires modules in seven areas (administrative/public, criminal, contract, tort, land/property, EU, and equity). It is unclear why military and ecclesiastical law are more important than those seven". A. You are correct; they are less important and are not part of any LLB syllabus as they have no relevance. But they still exist as divisions of English law. Note however, that of the LLB seven core subject areas, criminal is criminal, and all the rest are civil (albeit that EU law is a special case).   Arrivisto (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced OR/SYN  

message: The paragraph entitled "The main subject areas of English law" (previously "Subjects and links") has a lot of white space. Could this stuff be put into a more compact (and readable) table?  Arrivisto (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Those links could go into the See also section and formatted into two columns. Green Giant (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  "See also" is already pretty full, but two columns under the existing heading might be ideal. Could you put that into effect, please? Arrivisto (talk) 16:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've trimmed it by removing the unnecessary subheadings and put it into three columns. If you feel two columns works better, change the number in the  at the start of the section. Green Giant (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Much better; many thanks! Arrivisto (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much "white space" 

message: The revert stated: "writ is procedure not remedy, decree not per link, repudiation is not a remedy as such, rescission is an equitable remedy). Up to a point, Lord Copper! 
A remedy is anything that a party can get from the law, whether it is self-help or available only from a court.  A court will not issue a writ (for instance, a warrant for the arrest of ships) unless a party seeks one; that being so, it is not incorrect to call a writ a remedy, albeit effected by a written procedure).  Repudiation is a common law self-help remedy, and rescission is (normally) its equitable equivalent (although there are many decisions where the court has used the term "rescission" as synomous with repudiation). Writs are generally considered to have come from the King's Bench, so have a common law origin, even if they operate as equitable relief. Arrivisto (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not explained to readers and is unsupported OR/SYN. Please check with standard leading textbooks. "Writs are generally considered to have come from the King's Bench, so have a common law origin, even if they operate as equitable relief" is confusing and makes no sense here. It is inexact in terminolgy and detail and amounts to misinformation. Qexigator (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In common parlance, a "writ" is shorthand for "a High Court Writ", but because writs are available only at the discretion of the court they operate as equitable relief. Civil law is indeed wider in scope: an LLB student studies only one crime subject (criminal law) and a dozen or so civil law subjects, and most legal work is non-criminal; so I shall restore that statement. I cannot see how it is OR to state that repudiation and rescission are remedies, when there are very many sources on WP that say so. "Account of profits" like "unjust enrichment" is important, but arguably a minority interest in a general article such as this, but I'll let sleeping dogs lie. Arrivisto (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the article is for the information of general readers, not academic law students with restricted breadth or depth of syllabus or practical knowledge, Account of profits vividly illustrates for both sorts of reader how equitable remedies contrast with the usual, and almost invariable, common law remedy for damages, and, as an example, is historically and practically informative. For writs of summons see Rules of the Supreme Court, as applied after the merger of the courts of common law and of equity (from 1883) superseded by Civil Procedure Rules (from 1999); and see "High Court procedures". Qexigator (talk) 18:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

text: + You may recall that the Rules of the Supreme Court (Writ and Appearance) 1979 (Statutory Instrument 1979, No. 1716) was discussed in House of Lords in 1980, with reference to a revised wording in the form of a writ of summons: "... a writ is the usual way in the High Court of commencing a civil action in which a plaintiff claims his rights and remedies at law against a defendant. Based upon an old and valuable tradition that the subject looks to the Sovereign as the fountain of justice to see that his cause is attended to and that the dispensation of justice in this land is not dependent upon the transient Government of the day, or indeed upon some Ministry of Justice, and as a constant reminder of that, and whatever be the wording adopted for good or ill elsewhere in our courts or tribunals, the present High Court writ is addressed to a defendant with the words: Elizabeth the Second by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories, Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith". It continues with a command to the defendant to enter an appearance to the suit of the plaintiff. That merely means completing a form and is now, by this Statutory Instrument, very sensibly to be dealt with by a form of acknowledgement of service. The writ then further tells the defendant what he must do if he [line 1552] wishes to defend the action; what may happen to him in default; and how to act if he wishes to admit a liquidated claim. ...the deliberate removal of the Royal Command, that the defendant, should under the amendments elsewhere contained in this Instrument, acknowledge service of the writ and deal with the plaintiff's claim whether by admission or denial, or suffer the effects of default by judgment being entered against him. What are the arguments for the removal of this traditional and symbolic wording?" Qexigator (talk) 18:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I am at loss to understand what message the previous screed is meant to convey; perhaps there was no time to be brief? Nor is any meaning apparent in: "trim verbiage and rmv insufficient details of another category, and IF more fully explained here would be UNDUE. Maybe link in "See also" Verbiage? Not so! And is it helpful to call a remedy "actionable"; surely it is the cause of action or claim that is actionable, not the remedy? Arrivisto (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: wider in scope = verbiage. The above quotation from Hansard usefully characterises the significance of the writ of summons before and after the merger of the jurisdictions in the Supreme Court before this was obscured by the change made in the prescribed form. "Actionable": good point. Qexigator (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criminal law & civil law 

message: I think this paragraph - "The UK jurisdictions - Statutory definitions" - is overlong for this general page, given the cover elsewhere, such as British Islands. It seems a pruning is in order! Arrivisto (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now pruned this, and shifted the full text to a new main page. Arrivisto (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The UK jurisdictions - Statutory definitions - prune? 

message: A sentence in the sub-paragraph "Overseas influences" reads:"The common law inherited from England has in differing ways, but in that context,  "common law" is deemed a body of judge-made law enforced and developed by the courts which includes equity and admiralty law, but has always been "unintelligible without reference to statute". ".  I'm not sure what this is trying to say. Could someone perhaps make this a bit clearer? Arrivisto (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It now reads: "In this context, "common law" has been described as a body of judge-made law enforced and developed by the courts which includes equity and admiralty law, and which has always been "unintelligible without reference to statute"". Perhaps I'm missing something, but I cannot see what the phrase "and which has always been 'unintelligible without reference to statute'" means; the only sense I can make of it that it is incorrect! Arrivisto (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: In the context of "Courts of final appeal", "After Britain's colonial period", when "jurisdictions that had inherited and adopted England's common law developed their courts of final appeal in differing ways": that makes good sense does it not, per the source cited, in respect of countries such as Australia and Zambia? And see that ref.'s source (Mark Leeming), added to External links. Qexigator (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meaning of meaning 

message: From the article (aside from the funny, bourgeois liberal blurb to make it seem "diverse" by claiming English law is rooted in Islamic law.... LMFAO) we do not get a clear sense of who "English law" was set up to serve and the utility for its creation. "English law" was set up by the criminal Norman invaders as an afterthought to 1066 to keep their greasy little claws in control of land that they stole from other people... that is it. That is the oh so noble and profound "English" law. Then it spread into Wales and Ireland (so-called "Irish" law is "English" law which is Norman law) as the plunderers sought more land to steal and more races to subjugate. There is no continuity between early Anglo-Saxon law and "English"-Norman law, just as there is no continuity between "Irish"-Norman law and the Brehon laws of the Gaels. We need to name the Norman loud and clear in the introduction and especially the land ownership issue, especially as these legal arrangements are still in place to this day. Claíomh Solais (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "English" law is just Norman law 

message: The caption states that the Royal Courts of Justice are on The Strand when the road is simply Strand. I know both are commonly accepted but as the road is simply Strand it seems prudent to have it correct. Tomtiger11 (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caption for Royal Courts of Justice