{"title":"公平与行政行为:述评","authors":"Timothy Endicott","doi":"10.1017/CBO9781316529706.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":255520,"journal":{"name":"English & Commonwealth Law eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Equity and Administrative Behaviour: A Commentary\",\"authors\":\"Timothy Endicott\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/CBO9781316529706.019\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":255520,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"English & Commonwealth Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"English & Commonwealth Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316529706.019\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"English & Commonwealth Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316529706.019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
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.