[extract] The view expressed in Ashburner’s Principles on Equity was the traditional interpretation of the relationship of law and equity. Under this approach, a court exercising jurisdiction in both law and equity was required to maintain the separation of equitable doctrine from common law rules (and vice versa). Proponents of this traditional approach have greeted any attempt to rationalise and integrate legal and equitable causes of action and remedies with suspicion and have described these attempts as examples of the ’fusion fallacy’.
However recent case-law indicates that, in at least some areas, the traditional approach enunciated in Ashburner’s Principles of Equity and firmly held by some eminent commentators is now open to question.
"The 'Fusion Fallacy' Revisited,"
Bond Law Review:
2, Article 2.
Available at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr/vol5/iss2/2