Mischief rulePurposive interpretationCourt of Exchequer (England)

Heydon's Case

(1584) 76 English Reports 63715841 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Dispute over the validity of a lease granted by a college. Question was whether a statute applied to the particular transaction. The statutory language was ambiguous as to its scope.
Issue
What approach should a court take when interpreting a statute whose words are ambiguous?
Held
What was the common law before the Act? What was the mischief the common law did not provide for?
Principle
The Mischief Rule requires courts to consider what defect the statute was enacted to remedy, and interpret the statute to suppress that mischief and advance the remedy
Cite this

Facts

  • Dispute over the validity of a lease granted by a college
  • Question was whether a statute applied to the particular transaction
  • The statutory language was ambiguous as to its scope

Issue

  1. What approach should a court take when interpreting a statute whose words are ambiguous?

Held

  • What was the common law before the Act?
  • What was the mischief the common law did not provide for?
  • What remedy did Parliament resolve upon?
  • What is the true reason for the remedy?

Ratio decidendi

When statutory language is ambiguous, courts must look beyond the literal words to the purpose of the legislation. The four-question test directs the interpreter to identify the evil Parliament sought to cure and to adopt the construction that suppresses that evil and advances the remedy chosen.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • The single most cited case in Interpretation of Statutes; appears in every exam paper
  • The four-question test is the exam answer structure for any Mischief Rule question
  • Pair with Smith v. Hughes (1960) for a modern application
  • Key line: "For the sure and true interpretation of all statutes, four things are to be considered: the common law before the Act, the mischief, the remedy, and the true reason for the remedy."

Cite this

Citation

Heydon's Case (1584) 76 English Reports 637

Reported: (1584) 76 ER 637; verified via Westlaw, Halsbury's Laws. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.