Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution
The courts can correct an obvious drafting error in a statute, provided they are sure of the intended purpose and the words Parliament would have used.
Facts
The case concerned the right of appeal from a decision of the High Court on an application to stay proceedings in favour of arbitration under the Arbitration Act 1996. A consequential amendment to the Supreme Court Act 1981 made by the 1996 Act, read literally, appeared to remove the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal in a wider range of cases than Parliament could have intended.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the words should be read in a way that corrected the obvious drafting error. Lord Nicholls said that the court must be abundantly sure of three matters before it can correct a drafting error: the intended purpose of the statute or provision in question; that by inadvertence the draftsman and Parliament failed to give effect to that purpose in the provision in question; and the substance of the provision Parliament would have made, although not necessarily the precise words, had the error been noticed. The court's role remains interpretation, and it must not cross the boundary into legislation.
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
- Heydon's Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a
- 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.
