<P> The development of writs as a means of commencing a court action was a form of "off - the - shelf" justice designed to enable the English law courts to rapidly process lawsuits by allocating each form of complaint into a standard category which could be dealt with by standard procedures . The complainant simply applied to the court for the writ most relevant to his complaint to be sent to the wrongdoer, which ordered him under royal authority to attend a royal court to answer for his actions . The development was part of the establishment of a Court of Common Pleas, for dealing with commonly made complaints by subjects of the crown, for example: "someone has damaged my property". The previous system of justice at the royal court of Chancery was tailor - made to suit each case and was thus highly time - consuming . Thus eventually the obtaining of a writ became necessary, in most cases, to have a case heard in one of the Royal Courts, such as the King's Bench or Common Pleas . Some franchise courts, especially in the Counties Palatine, had their own system of writs which often reflected or anticipated the common law writs . The writ was "served" on (delivered in person to) the wrongdoer and acted as a command that he should appear at a specified time and date before the court specified in the writ, or it might command some other act on the part of the recipient . </P> <P> Where a plaintiff wished to have a case heard by a local court, or by an Eyre if one happened to be visiting the County, there would be no need to obtain a writ . Actions in local courts could usually be started by an informal complaint . However, if a plaintiff wished to avail himself of Royal--and by implication superior--justice in one of the King's courts, then he would need a writ, a command of the King, to enable him to do this . Initially for common law, recourse to the King's courts was unusual, and something for which a plaintiff would have to pay . For most Royal Courts, the writ would usually have been purchased from the Chancery, although the court of the Exchequer, being in essence another government department, was able to issue its own writs . </P> <P> While originally writs were exceptional, or at least non-routine devices, Maitland suggests that by the time of King Henry II (1154 - 1189), the use of writs had become a regular part of the system of royal justice in England . </P> <P> At first, new writs were drafted to fit each new situation, although in practice the clerks of the Chancery would use wording from previously issued writs, with suitable adjustments, often taken from reference books containing collections of forms of writ, much as in modern times lawyers frequently use fixed precedents or boilerplate, rather than re-inventing the wording of a new legal document . The problem with this approach was that a plaintiff's rights and available forms of action at his disposal, would be defined, and in most cases limited, by the limited variety of writs available to him . Thus the power to create new writs was akin to the power to create new rights, a form of extra-parliamentary legislation . Moreover, a writ, if one could be found fitting the plaintiff's case, provided the legal means to remove the dispute from the jurisdiction of the local court, often controlled by a lesser noble, and instead have it heard by the King's judges . The nobility thus saw the creation of new writs as an erosion of their influence . </P>

How many types of writs can be issued by the supreme court