Equity Conscience And Unjust Enrichment

The doctrines are progressive, refined and improved. and if we want to know what the rules of equity are, we must look, of course, rather to the more modern than the more ancient cases:
The contention that both branches of law are fused for practical purposes is more recent. Despite the fact that the primacy of equity was reaffirmed in the Supreme Court Act 19814 s 49 (1), (2), Lord Diplock took the view that:
Lord Browne-Wilkinson said in Tinsley v Milligan [1994]6 that English law was now a single law which was made up of legal and equitable interests, and a person owning either type of estate had a right of property amounting to a right in rem not merely a right in personam. This is consistent with Lord Goff’s view in Napier and Ettrick (Lord] v Hunter [1993]7:
However, this did not prevent equity from developing new correctives and devices to meet new circumstances. Lord Denning was a proponent of the view that law and equity had fused for both administrative and practical purposes. He seemed to interpret this to mean on the one hand, that all remedies were available regardless of the origin of the cause of action.8 On the other hand, he continued to recognize equity’s ability to create new remedies and recognize rights, through such concepts as the ‘new model constructive trust’:
Equity is not past the age of childbearing. One of her latest progeny is a constructive trust of a new model.
This does not mean that equity is past childbearing. simply that its progeny must be legitimate – by precedent out of principle. It is well that this should be so. otherwise, no lawyer could safely advise on his client’s title and every quarrel would lead to a law-suit’.