"... following a set of loose rules to avoid the slow pace and possible harshness (or "inequity") of the common law." This seems rather strange, given the criticism of the Court's slowness.
"Initially merely an administrative body with some judicial jurisdiction ...". I find the word "jurisdiction" a little strange here, as I understand "jurisdiction" to be over something, like petitions for divorce for instance. Could just be my misunderstanding though.
I think the lead should be reorganised, and the second paragraph, which explains what the Court of Chancery was, should be moved right up to the start of the article, and the historical stuff presently there moved down. Why should we care how or when it was set up if we don't yet know what it was?
"... which also show that some cases were heard by his personal staff, the Chancery, not just by the Chancellor." This is a little ambiguous. The word "just" could imply that some cases were heard by the Chancellor and his staff, but what I think is meant is that some cases were heard by the Chancellor's staff alone.
"The Court of Chancery could grant three possible remedies; specific performance, injunctions and Damages." Why is "Damages" capitalised but the other two aren't?
"The Chancery came to prominence after the decline of the Exchequer, dealing with the law of equity, something more fluid and adaptable than the common law." That seems a little ambiguous, as it's not entirely clear who was dealing with the law of equity, the Chancery or the Exchequer. I can't quite make sense of the word "dealing" here either. Was whichever it was already dealing with the law of equity, or did it come into "prominence" (another curious word choice) to deal with the law of equity. I also find the conjunction of the law of equity with common law a little jarring, but of course I'm no lawyer, so that may just be me.
Both courts dealt with equity cases; after the decline of the Exchequer, all the equity business went to the Chancery (not quite sure how to phrase it all, I'm afraid). Ironholds (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"... had a very liberal view to setting aside cases." Was it the cases that were set aside or the complaints?
Complaints works
"The Chancery bills were in French, and later English ...". This is the first we've heard of a Chancery bill; what were they?
"writs" works better; changed
"... where it sat almost without variation ...". Not sure what "variation" means here. Continually?
Fixed.
"Carne considers this a key moment ...". Who's Carne?
"occasionally a committee of lay and church members disposed of them, assisted by the judges in the common law courts ...". Does that mean that some of the cases were heard in the common law courts, or that some of the judges of those courts heard cases in the Court of Chancery?
"... and notes that this period also saw the first complaints." Complaints about what? The word "complaints was used earlier almost as a synonym for case, but presumably here we're referring to complaints about the Court of Chancery?
"... aggrieved at the Chancery's extended jurisdiction that overlapped with that of the common law." Would this be better as "overlapped with the jurisdiction of the common law", or something similar. It's hard to see how it "affected" it in any event.
"These complaints from the Commons did not prevent the Court working." I'm unclear what "working" means here. Didn't prevent the Court from carrying out its duties? Didn't prevent it from being successful? Something else?
"He gives complaints about the perversion of justice in the common law courts, along with growing mercantile and commercial interests, as the main reason for this ...". By the time we get to "for this" it's getting difficult to recall what "this" was.
"the judges (without opposition from the monarch) allowed a claim to proceed despite the Lord Chancellor's previous implied jurisdiction." I'm not sure what "previous" is implying here. Previous to what?
"This bold move is seen as helping Coke lose his position as a judge ...". Whose bold move? Cokes, The Kings? Someone else? Seen by who as helping Coke lose his position?
Attempted reform under the Commonwealth of England
"... evidence were re-heard up to three times". Is that really "re-heard" three times, i.e., for times in all, or just heard three times? Why "were" rather than "was"? Isn't evidence singular?
"Wilfrid Prest writes that despite these legislative enactments ...". I know that Prest is wikilinked, but I think as I suggested above that it's beter to say who these people are. Something along the lines of "Legal historian Wilfrid Prest ...".
"Wilfrid Prest writes that despite these legislative enactments, however ...". I've removed this unnecessary "however", but there do seem to be a plethora of them in this article. Are they all really needed? look at the last paragraph of the Remedies section for instance. The "howevers" seem to be chasing each other.
"The Committee 'that the interest which a great number of officers and clerks have in the proceedings of the Court of Chancery ...'". Is there a word missing after "The Committee"? "The Committee concluded"?
"The recommendations were not immediately acted on, but in 1743 a list of permissible fees was published, and that to cut down on paperwork no party should be required to obtain office copies of proceedings." The second half of this sentence seems disconnected from the first half. Should it be something like "and to cut down on paperwork no party was required to obtain office copies of proceedings"?
"As a result of the new appointments, the issue of court backlogs was significantly reduced ...". It wasn't the issue that was reduced, but the backlog. Why not simplify by saying something like "The Court backlog was significantly reduced"?
"... in the 1860s 3207 cases were submitted each year, with the Court hearing 2010 and dismissing 1823." That doesn't add up, in more ways than one. Is that an average of 3,207 cases per year? What happened to the cases that were neither heard nor dismissed. Is this saying that in the decade of the 1860s the Court heard only an average of 201 cases per year, or exactly 2,010 cases each year?
"Rather than fusing the common law and equity, which he saw as impracticable since it would destroy the idea of trusts, but rather to fuse the courts and the procedure." This deosn't really make sense, but I'm not certain I understand sufficiently what it's trying to say to rewrite it.
"These plans were, after amendment with the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1875, brought into effect ...". They weren't plans though, they were the provisions in the bill weren't they?
"... and the Vice-Chancellors ceased to exist". Makes it sound like they were vaporised. Surely it was the role of Vice-Chancellor that ceased to exist, not the Vice-Chancellors.
"From its foundation, the Court of Chancery was able to administer estates, due to their jurisdiction over trusts". This is puzzling. Who had jurisdiction over trusts, the estates or the Court? Should this be "its jurisdiction over trusts"?
"The Chancery's jurisdiction over "lunatics" came from a mixed origin; first, the King's prerogative to do so ...". this seems really awkward to me. I'm not overly fond of "came from a mixed origin", and "the Kinh's prerogative to do so" comes out of the blue. Do what? the sentence started by talking about jurisdiction, not doing anything.
"This jurisdiction applied to any "idiots" or "lunatics", regardless of if they were British citizens". I'm a bit dubious about the term "British citizen" when applied to the 12th century.
"... as the idea of charity had been originally enforced by the Church". The idea of charity was enforced by the Church? Surely even the Church even then didn't have the power to enforce an idea.
"This remained the cause until the 18th and early 19th centuries ...". Should that be "case" instead of "cause"? If so, what remained the case? We've just finished reading about damages awarded for harm to woods. Is that what we're talking about here with "this"?
"The Court's right to confirm damages was again confirmed, however". Can this not be rewritten to avoid the repetition of "confirm", and to get rid of another of those "howevers"?
"... if a plaintiff starts an action in a court of equity for specific performance and damages are also appropriate, the court may choose to award damages." I'm unclear which court this is referring to as being allowed to award damages. As it's not capitalised it looks like we're talking about a court of equity, but that doesn't seem to follow naturally from what's been said before.
"... the situation before that was such that lawyers at the time commented as if the Court had not previously been able to do so." I'm not following this at all. We've been given several examples earlier in this section of the Court awarding damages, so why would lawyers of the time think it couldn't?
"After the conquest they gradually lost their dignity". Strange phrasing. Did they take to the bottle or something, lose interest in personal hygiene? Should this be "lost their authority"?
"The first reference to the Master of the Rolls comes from, although it is believed he probably existed before that". Seems to be a missing word there, and another of these immortals who's existed for ever.
"The positions were regularly and openly sold by the Master of the Rolls and Lord Chancellor, with Masters in Chancery going for £6,000 in 1625. For that purpose ...". So the Act was passed to allow these positions to be sold, rather than put a stop to it?
"... although the Statute of Uses 'deal a severe blow to these forms of conveyancing' and made the law in this area far more complex. Is that quotation correct? Shouldn't it be "dealt"? If "deal" is accurate then it probably needs a [sic] after it.
