LAWS101 @ Carrington
Tutorial 7
Legal History
Key Readings:
Stephen Smith: Chapter 8 – Equity
Study Questions
1. What is meant by English equity? How will your answer differ over the
centuries during which that question could be asked?
2. What is the relationship between equity and the common law? (origins,
functions and evolution through history)
3. What was the historical role of the Chancellor and the Chancery?
4. What was the cause and the outcome of the 17th century disputes
between the Court of King’s Bench and the Court of Chancery?
5. What was the effect of the Judicature Acts of 1873-75?
6. What does equity acts ‘in personam’ mean?
7. How did equity adjust the way that the Statute of Limitations 1623 and
the Statute of Frauds 1677 were applied?
8. What is the meaning of the aphorism ‘equity varies as the length of the
Chancellor’s foot’?
9. Briefly describe the doctrine of equitable estoppel.
10. Consider the following statement from Mullholland:
“New Zealand never had a separate Court which administered
principles of equity. When the Supreme Court, now the High Court,
was established in New Zealand in 1842, it administered the principles
of both common law and equity.”
1
LAWS101 @ Carrington
Why do you think the common law and equity were unified in NZ
Courts a full 3 decades before the same occurred in England?
Legislation
Practice Test - Review
These are from the 2007 LAWS101A Exam – the facts are virtually the same, but the name of
the parties are different.
Issues – CK’s liability under s5(a) to (d) EVER Act 2007
(1) Did CK ‘sell or trade’ and entry ticket to the managed venue for ‘a value other
than the sale price’ in breach of s5(1)(a)?
-
Argument here about whether the friend’s 50% constribution to ticket price in
exchange for bringing in the items constituted a ‘trade’.
Probably liable here.
(2) Did CK bring into the managed venue a ‘prohibited item’ in breach of s5(1)(b)?
-
Arguments re: large inflatable letters, small gas bottles, roman candles.
Preliminary issue: CK not liable for the first two as his friends carried them in.
That they did so on his behalf is irrelevant.
Argument about whether the defence could be raised that ejusdem generis
applies to limit the class of projectiles to those that are capable of being thrown:
“stone, bottle, can”
o Purpose of Act (promoting safety and enjoyment of participants and
spectators) will probably take precedence here to override this statutory
interpretation, so this argument favours the prosecution.
(3) Did CK ‘advertise a product or service’ by using a banner, placard, poster or
other sign’ in breach of s5(1)(c)?
-
-
2
Arguments re: inflatable letters and song, as displayed on the stadium’s
projection screen, constituted an advertisement for a product or service.
o Prosecution would argue for a broad meaning of ‘advertise’ to any
conduct looking to advance a cause, while defence would seek to narrow
it to intentional promotion for commercial gain – absurdity if other
people’s names that happen to be brand names could not be displayed
on crowd banners etc.
o Although there was no intention on the part of the defendant to advertise
a product or service, advertisement for “Tui” (the brand) was clearly the
result in the eyes of the public, and the purpose of the act would be
thwarted if no liability was found – commercial exploitation occurred, and
was unauthorised (df could have sought authorisation from the venue to
limit his liability).
Arguments about whether defence could succeed in arguing ejusdem generis
applies to narrow the general “or other sign” to objects displaying words or
pictures in a fixed manner.
LAWS101 @ Carrington
(4) Did CK run onto the ‘playing surface’ or ‘propel and object or thing’ onto the
playing surface by ‘throwing, kicking or rolling in any other manner’?
-
Argument here about Curley running on, not CK personally. Act deals with the
liability of persons only.
Curly any ‘ object or thing’?
o noscitur a sociis – content of the subpara – wording such as ‘throwing,
kicking, rolling’ – not intended by legislature to refer to animals.
o ejusdem generis – class of objects created by list of specifics ‘throwing
kicking or rolling’ – delimits the general (“in any other manner”) to the
movement of a inanimate object usually found in a sports venue.
A final recap of interpretive techniques
If you want more detail on these issues, check out: Burrows “Statute Law in New Zealand”
(on reserve in the Law Library at KL36 .BY89 2009)
noscitur a sociis
A particular world may have its shade of meaning coloured by the other words of the section
in which it appears.
EXAMPLES:
Abrahams v Cavey [1968] QB 479: “riotous, violent or indecent behaviour”
Df charged with indecent behaviour in a place of religious worship after abusing people in a
church. Defence lawyer argued that indecent had connotations of sexuality or offensiveness.
Lord Parker held that the word appeared in such a context that it meant no more than “create
a disturbance”.
Race Relations Act 1971: “colour, race, ethnic or national origins”
CA held that the word “ethnic” does not have a narrow anthropological meaning, but a broad
meaning as required by the phrase in which it appears.
ejusdem generis
A subclass of noscitur. May arise where specific words forming a list are followed by a catchall. If there is a class formed by the specifics, the general word which follows them should be
limited to that class.
EXAMPLES:
Otley v Armstrong: “factory” defined as “any building, office or place”. An open timber yard
was held not to be a factory as it was not of the same class as “building”, as it was not
housed under some structure.
Sunday Observance Act 1677: prohibited from working on a Sunday any “tradesman, artificer,
workman, labourer, or other person whatsoever”. Held that the specifics (“working class
person”) limited the general (“other person whatsoever”) to exclude a farmer or a barber.
REMEMBER:

3
Specifics must form a class (they must not be too diverse, and not exhaust the class of
things).
LAWS101 @ Carrington

4
Always gives way to clear purpose of the legislation. It is only a guide. Purposive
approach will trump it.