Professional Documents
Culture Documents
The House of Lords decided that the literal approach would have left the United
Kingdom in breach of its Treaty obligations to give effect to an EU directive. It therefore
used the purposive approach and stated that Miss Pickstone was entitled to claim on
the basis of work of equal value even though there was a male employee doing the
same work as her.
The House of Lords had to decide whether a teacher at a private school had to pay tax
on the perk he received in the form of reduced school fees. The teacher sought to rely
upon a statement in Hansard made at the time the Finance Act was passed in which the
minister gave his exact circumstance as being where tax would not be payable.
Previously the courts were not allowed
to refer to Hansard (See Davis v Johnson).
Held:
The House of Lords departed from Davis v Johnson and took a purposive approach to
interpretation holding that Hansard may be referred to and the teacher was not
required to pay tax on the perk he received.
"The days have passed when the courts adopted a literal approach. The courts use a
purposive approach, which seeks to give effect to the purpose of legislation and are
prepared to look at much extraneous material that bears upon the background against
which the legislation was enacted."
"My Lords, I have come to the conclusion that, as a matter of law, there are sound
reasons for making a limited modification to the existing rule (subject to strict
safeguards) unless there are constitutional or practical reasons which outweigh them. In
my judgment, subject to the questions of the privileges of the House of Commons,
reference to Parliamentary material should be permitted as an aid to the construction of
legislation which is ambiguous or obscure or the literal meaning of which leads to an
absurdity. Even in such cases references in court to Parliamentary material should only
be permitted where such material clearly discloses the mischief aimed at or the
legislative intention lying behind the ambiguous or obscure words. In the case of
statements made in Parliament, as at present advised I cannot foresee that any
statement other than the statement of the Minister or other promoter of the Bill is likely
to meet these criteria."
"Where A wounds or assaults B occasioning him actual bodily harm in the course of a
sado-masochistic encounter, does the prosecution have to prove lack of consent on the
part of B before they can establish A's guilt under section 20 and section 47 of the 1861,
Offences Against the Person Act?"
Held: 3:2
The defence of consent cannot be relied on in offences under s.47 and s.20 OAPA 1861
where the injuries resulted from sadomasochist activities.
CLARKE V KATO AND OT HERS; CUTTER V EAGLE STAR
INSURANCE CO LTD: HL 25 NOV 1998
Coram: Lord Browne-Wilkinson, Lord Goff of Chieveley, Lord Slynn of Hadley, Lord
Steyn, Lord Clyde
Ratio: Save exceptionally, a car park is not a road for the purposes of road traffic
legislation on obligatory insurance. It is an unjustified strain on the language. A
distinction made between the road ways and the parking bays was artificial and
unhelpful. Whether any particular area was a road is a question of fact in each case. ‘In
the generality of the matter it seems to me that in the ordinary use of language a car
park does not so qualify. In character and more especially in function they are distinct. It
is of course possible to park on a road, but that does not mean that the road is a car
park. Correspondingly one can drive from one point to another over a car park, but that
does not mean that the route which has been taken is a road. It is here that the
distinction in function between road and car park is of importance. The proper function
of a road is to enable movement along it to a destination. Incidentally a vehicle on it
may be stationary. One can use a road for parking. ‘
Statutes: Road Traffic Act 1988 145(3)(a)