Pepper v Hart
The courts may refer to statements in Parliament, recorded in Hansard, to interpret ambiguous legislation, in limited circumstances.
Facts
Teachers at Malvern College were entitled, as a perk of their job, to have their sons educated at the school for one fifth of the normal fees. The question was how the benefit should be valued for income tax purposes under section 63 of the Finance Act 1976: at the extra cost to the school of educating the boys, which was very small because the school had spare places, or at a proportion of the total cost of running the school. During the passage of the Bill, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury had told the House of Commons that such benefits would be valued on the basis of the marginal cost to the employer.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the benefit should be taxed on the basis of the marginal cost, which was very small. It also held, relaxing the previous exclusionary rule, that the courts can refer to Hansard as an aid to interpretation where legislation is ambiguous or obscure, or leads to an absurdity, where the material relied on consists of one or more statements by a minister or other promoter of the Bill, and where the statements are clear. Using Hansard in this way did not breach article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1689, because it was not questioning proceedings in Parliament but using them to give effect to Parliament's intention. Later cases have limited the use of Pepper v Hart.
Related cases on separation of powers and parliamentary privilege
- Bradlaugh v Gossett (1884) 12 QBD 271
- Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142
- Harper v Secretary of State for the Home Department [1955] Ch 238
- Hinds v The Queen [1977] AC 195
- Liyanage v The Queen [1967] 1 AC 259
- Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1995] 1 AC 321
- R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2002] UKHL 46, [2003] 1 AC 837
- R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014] UKSC 38, [2015] AC 657
Studying public law? 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.
