Equity is all about making certain that justice is served. The common law doesn't always provide a remedy, or, if it does, the remedy isn't always adequate. Equity attempts to cater for this. (You might remember from your readings that the old chancery courts developed from the king's discretionary decisions based on the specific facts of a single case.)
In Bulun Bulun, it was acknowledged that it is not possible for the common law to recognise communal title (204 at 35). Counsel for the applicant therefore sought a remedy based on 'equitable principles', which was the only avenue that was open to them. Equitable relief is only available where (a) the common law does not provide an adequate remedy, (b) the specific facts of the case warrant it and (c) such relief accords with the 'maxims of equity'.
Milpurrurru was denied access to equitable relief because the common law had been able to provide an adequate remedy. I also thought it was interesting that von Doussa J pointed out by way of obiter exactly what Bulun Bulun needed to do (or needed to refrain from doing) next time this issue arose in order to ensure that Milpurrurru had access to equitable relief.
You should be able to cover any settlement-related issues yourself (otherwise, be more specific
).
