Heydon's Case
The origin of the mischief rule: the court looks at the mischief the statute was intended to remedy.
Facts
A statute of 1540 dealt with the dissolution of religious houses and protected certain interests in land granted by them. The case concerned whether a copyhold interest granted by a college shortly before the statute was protected, and the Barons of the Exchequer considered how the statute should be interpreted.
Legal principle
The court laid down four questions to be considered in interpreting a statute: what was the common law before the Act; what was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide; what remedy Parliament had resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth; and the true reason of the remedy. Judges should then make such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. This is known as the mischief rule, and it is an early form of the purposive approach that is now dominant.
Related cases on statutory interpretation
- Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7
- Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg AG [1975] AC 591
- Corkery v Carpenter [1951] 1 KB 102
- Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HLC 61
- Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586
- Jones v Tower Boot Co Ltd [1997] ICR 254
- London and North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman [1946] AC 278
- Magor and St Mellons Rural District Council v Newport Corp [1952] AC 189
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
