Talk:Equity: Doctrines and Remedies

Notability

It was suggested in the editing history that this book was not notable enough:

what evidence of "preeminence" is there? at a NPOV glance, this is self-promotion. scholarly textbooks do not carry the weight of law --as is suggested in its categories

Obviously textbooks do not carry the weight of law. That does not mean they cannot be highly influential. This book is one of the most authoritative legal texts in Australia, and is well known in the field of equity in the common law world. For example, upon the conferral of upon one of the lead authors of an honorary doctorate of laws (LLD) at the University of Sydney, it was said:

...it is likely that Justice Meagher's lasting reputation will attach to his scholarly legal texts, and particularly Equity Doctrines and Remedies. That book has probably enjoyed greater esteem than any other Australian legal treatise, not only in universities but also with the Bench and Bar in this country, England and elsewhere. There is no equivalent to it in England, the United States or anywhere else. Its publication helped reverse the general decline of equity and signalled a rebirth of its influence.[1]

Further, the book has been cited frequently over many years in Australian courts, including the High Court of Australia. (See for example, ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63; 208 CLR 199, at [292].) Even a quick search on AustLII through Australian cases produces 1314 results.

As such, the article should remain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.0.128 (talk) 10:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)