External aidsHansardHouse of Lords

Pepper v Hart

[1993] Appeal Cases 59319931 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
Teachers at Malvern College received concessionary fee places for their sons. Finance Act 1976, Section 63: taxable benefit = "cost" of providing the benefit. Revenue assessed on average cost (higher); teachers argued marginal cost (lower)
Issue
Whether courts may refer to Parliamentary debates (Hansard) to resolve ambiguity in a statute.
Held
Previous exclusionary rule (Davis v. Johnson) relaxed.
Principle
Courts may refer to Hansard (Parliamentary debates) as an aid to statutory interpretation where legislation is ambiguous, the material relied on consists of clear ministerial statements, and it would prevent injustice.
Cite this

Facts

  • Teachers at Malvern College received concessionary fee places for their sons
  • Finance Act 1976, Section 63: taxable benefit = "cost" of providing the benefit
  • Revenue assessed on average cost (higher); teachers argued marginal cost (lower)
  • Statute was ambiguous on which meaning of "cost" applied

Issue

  1. Whether courts may refer to Parliamentary debates (Hansard) to resolve ambiguity in a statute.

Held

  • Previous exclusionary rule (Davis v. Johnson) relaxed
  • Hansard may be consulted subject to three conditions:
  • The legislation is ambiguous or obscure or leads to an absurd result
  • The material relied on consists of clear statements by a Minister (or promoter of a Bill)
  • Reliance on Hansard would not infringe Parliamentary privilege

Ratio decidendi

Where legislation is ambiguous, courts may have regard to statements made in Parliament by the Minister during passage of the Bill, provided the statements are clear and directly relevant to the point in dispute.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Landmark on external aids to interpretation
  • Three conditions must be cited
  • Key line: "In Pepper v. Hart (1993), the House of Lords held that Hansard may be consulted where legislation is ambiguous, ministerial statements are clear, and reliance would not infringe Parliamentary privilege."

Cite this

Citation

Pepper v. Hart [1993] Appeal Cases 593

Reported: [1993] AC 593. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.