Squabbles. Through the exercise of our one inalienable right to do whatever we wish save that which causes another harm, it is self-evident that we will intrude upon one another. This, any interference from our going about our business unmolested, however so manifested, is a breach of the peace, for the peace exists on either side of the boundary where my right ends and another’s begin.
Fortunately, for the most part, these breaches, are resolved privately.
Where, however, we are unable to reach private agreement then our dispute can and indeed should be moved into the public realm and it is the function of the court to restore the peace in its capacity as the venue for public dispute resolution. This process was very much in evidence when Miller and Cherry disputed Boris Johnson’s claimed authority to prorogue parliament.
The Courts in the UK are held out as based on Common Law. That is true, to an extent. Common Law is simply the application of precedence. In brief, lower courts are bound to follow the ruling of a higher court, so on this basis, that which is established by the highest court (in the case of the UK, the supreme court) applies to all other courts, they (lower courts) cannot deviate as to do so would be to take the law into their own hands, which is an abandonment of office under their duties, rights and obligations (to the law) which they freely enter into upon taking office (whichever that may be from the Monarch down) under their respective oath, affirmation or attestation.
‘…I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.’
It is of no surprise that the original oath of office of the Lord Chancellor, whom the monarch deputises to maintain the court system is also the opening quote in the introduction to the Equal Treatment Bench Book[1]Â and neither should it be of any surprise that the opening chapter of that guidebook is directed squarely at Litigants in Person and Lay Representatives, aka you and me. After all, this is our law and these are our courts and so it is only right and proper that the judiciary themselves establish for all to see, the rules of the game. With the Bench Book in hand, it is perfectly permissible for us to understand how the court is required to conduct itself and indeed compel it to do so, in respect of our enforcing their rules as to how they go about discerning that which all parties to any dispute are simply seeking to determine, the evidential truth.
The benefit then of a common law approach is that we need only understand the highest court of the land, as it governs all lower courts. This is not to say that there are not inconsistencies, there are many, however such inconsistencies can and must be disputed so that lower courts are forced to function lawfully. So how are we to go about understanding how the high courts (Appeals and Supreme) operate. And, again, the solution is simple, look to their judgements as all disputes are available online to directly observe and judgements, with their reasoned determination are published[2]Â documents, incidentally setting the precedent for transparency you can demand of lower courts.
In seeking to understand how the highest (and thus all) court operate it is only necessary to quote their own words and again turning to the Bench Books opening page we find all we need to know.
‘A judgment which results from an unfair trial is written in water.’
 Lord Reed Serafin v Malkiewicz and others [2020] UKSC 23
This 2020 statement by the Supreme Court is simply re-affirming that which King James I in settling the dispute between Oxford v. Magdalen (1615) determined and which is repeated in the 1981 Senior Courts Act[3]  that ‘wherever there is any conflict or variance between the rules of equity and the rules of the common law with reference to the same matter, the rules of equity shall prevail’.
It is a settled matter that for over 400 years and continuing to this day that the law of the land is based on Equity, not common law and thus all courts are courts of equity.
Now properly understood, common law itself is meaningless, it simply describes a process which when considered in generality makes clear and logical sense. Rather than courts up and down the country running wild in decision making you apply a system of precedence and bind all courts to a higher court and the highest court is transparent in both conduct and reason.
So, what is equity?
At its simplest, it is that which is just and right, and it is invoked wherever there is an injustice as equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy[4].
Here again, upon examination our forebears gave us an elegant system of law. In going about our lives, we will inevitably have disputes and where we are unable to settle matters privately, we take our argument to the court whose sole purpose is to apply their mind impartially to the matter in hand, consider the evidence presented and establish the truth based upon their conscience (that which is right and just) where the existing common law precedence fails thereby creating a new and binding common law settlement.
Thus, Law, defined as our birthright in the 1700 Act of Settlement simply means remedy. No more, no less. Whenever some body (be that an individual or group of individuals, parliament for instance) impugns your right to go about doing whatever you wish save that which causes another harm then that breach of your peace, where not resolved privately must be remedied publicly in the court. That our custom of late has been to not seek remedy to unlawful interference in our lives does not mean that the means of doing so are not available to us, they are, and our court system properly examined is correctly constituted, and it is our obligation, as we are all in our own right, peacekeepers, to seek remedy.
[1]Â https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Equal-Treatment-Bench-Book-February-2021-1.pdf
[2]Â https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/court-of-appeal-home/
https://www.supremecourt.uk/
[3]Â https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1981/54/section/49