Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The mischief rule [1] is one of three rules of statutory interpretation traditionally applied by English courts, [2] the other two being the "plain meaning rule" (also known as the "literal rule") and the "golden rule". It is used to determine the exact scope of the "mischief" that the statute in question has set out to remedy, and to guide the ...
Heydon's Case (1584) 76 ER 637 is considered a landmark case: it was the first case to use what would come to be called the mischief rule of statutory interpretation.The mischief rule is more flexible than the golden or literal rule, in that the mischief rule requires judges to look over four tasks to ensure that gaps within the law are covered.
The plain meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is one of three rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts. [1] The other two are the "mischief rule" and the "golden rule". The plain meaning rule dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute.
It is often mentioned that common law statutes can be interpreted by using the Golden Rule, the Mischief Rule or the Literal Rule. However, according to Francis Bennion , author of texts on statutory interpretation, [ 8 ] there are no such simple devices to elucidate complex statutes, "[i]nstead there are a thousand and one interpretative ...
Purposive interpretation is a derivation of mischief rule set in Heydon's Case, [5] and intended to replace the mischief rule, the plain meaning rule and the golden rule. [6] Purposive interpretation is used when the courts use extraneous materials from the pre-enactment phase of legislation, including early drafts, hansards , committee reports ...
The golden rule in English law is one of the rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by the English courts. The rule can be used to avoid the consequences of a literal interpretation of the wording of a statute when such an interpretation would lead to a manifest absurdity or to a result that is contrary to principles of public policy.
The result of Pepper was a reversal of that rule; a court could use internal Parliamentary discussions where it was relevant to "the very point in question in the litigation", where a piece of legislation is "ambiguous or obscure, or the literal meaning of which leads to an absurdity", with the intention being to understand "the mischief aimed ...
Related legal interpretative rules include the purposive rule and the mischief rule of some Commonwealth countries such as in the law of England and Wales as to decidedly-unclear legislation (Acts or Regulations).