Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shortlisted for the 2003 Walter Owen Book Prize (first edition) This new edition of The Law of Equitable Remedies significantly expands upon earlier editions by incorporating more case references and enhanced discussions of the most salient cases. Changes include: • Chapters on interlocutory injunctions fully discuss the Supreme Court's new revisions to the standard for interlocutory mandatory injunctions. • Chapters on asset preservation orders (Mareva Injunctions) and search orders (Anton Piller Orders) have been revised to account for new decisions that respond to current developments in the digital universe. • Chapters on specific performance have been significantly revised. • Chapters on equitable damages and equitable compensation have been rewritten to reflect recent developments of the UK Supreme Court on the former, and of the Supreme Court of Canada in Southwind v Canada and the Ontario Court of Appeal in Stirrett v Cheema on the latter. • The chapter on rectification incorporates the Supreme Court's decision in Canada v Fairmont Hotels . As with past editions, the new edition is designed to provide judges, practitioners, and students an accessible but comprehensive review of all the relevant cases on equitable remedies, as well as give context and analysis of the history and methods of equity in the common law of remedies.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.007 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".