R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex p Spath Holme Ltd
The House of Lords limited the use of Hansard under Pepper v Hart to cases where the statute is truly ambiguous and the ministerial statement is clear.
Facts
The Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999, made under section 31 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, capped increases in the registered rents of regulated tenancies. Landlords challenged the order, arguing that the power in section 31 could only be used to counter inflation, and relied on statements made by a minister in Parliament when the 1985 Act was passed.
Legal principle
The House of Lords held that the order was lawful and that the minister's statements could not be relied on. Lord Bingham said that Pepper v Hart should be applied only where the statute is ambiguous or obscure or its literal meaning leads to absurdity, and where the ministerial statement is clear and directed to the very point in question. Section 31 was not ambiguous, because it conferred a broad power to restrict rent increases for any reason related to the purposes of the Act, and the ministerial statements were not clear on the point.
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
- 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
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.
