A Classification of Fusion after Harris V Digital Pulse

The fusion of law and equity might be variously characterised as fact, fallacy,1 or furphy.2 Whilst some Commonwealth countries have embraced the unification of the two jurisdictions,3 Australian jurisprudence has been more hostile to the concept. There can be no doubt that the influential thinking of Meagher, Gummow and Lehane, expressed in the various editions of Equity: Doctrine and Remedies,4 has contributed significantly to the Australian reserve. ‘Fusion’ is a term that embraces many meanings.5 In all its senses, it captures the notion that the boundaries between the jurisdictions of common law and equity are becoming less rigid. However, this theme gives rise to countless variations. At one extreme, the call is made to remove all unnecessary distinctions between the common law and equity. A more cautious view advocates the quiet integration of the doctrines. This article posits a broad classification of the suggested approaches. The case in favour of fusion has been advocated as long as there have been two jurisdictions to fuse.6 Blackstone questioned the differences between the