Literal rulePlain meaningHouse of Lords

Sussex Peerage Case

(1844) 11 Cl & Fin 85; 8 English Reports 103418442 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The Duke of Sussex (Prince Augustus Frederick, son of King George III) married Lady Augusta Murray in 1793 in Rome without obtaining the King's prior consent. The Royal Marriages Act, 1772 required consent for descendants of George II.
Issue
Whether the marriage of the Duke of Sussex, contracted without Royal consent as mandated by the Royal Marriages Act 1772, was valid.
Held
The House of Lords held that the marriage was void. The words of the statute were plain and unambiguous: marriages without Royal consent were "null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever." There was no room for interpretation beyond the literal meaning.
Principle
Literal Rule: clear and unambiguous words must be given their plain grammatical meaning regardless of consequences.
Cite this

Facts

  • The Duke of Sussex (Prince Augustus Frederick, son of King George III) married Lady Augusta Murray in 1793 in Rome without obtaining the King's prior consent
  • The Royal Marriages Act, 1772 required consent for descendants of George II
  • The Act stated marriages without consent were "null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever"
  • After the Duke's death in 1843, the question arose whether his son could claim the title through succession

Issue

  1. Whether the marriage of the Duke of Sussex, contracted without Royal consent as mandated by the Royal Marriages Act 1772, was valid.

Held

  • The House of Lords held that the marriage was void. The words of the statute were plain and unambiguous: marriages without Royal consent were "null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever." There was no room for interpretation beyond the literal meaning.

Ratio decidendi

If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such case, best declare the intention of the lawgiver. (Lord Tindal CJ)

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Foundation of the Literal Rule; the leading authority for plain meaning approach
  • Shows restraint on judicial creativity: if Parliament used clear language, the court's job is to apply it, not rewrite it
  • Contrast with Heydon's Case (1584) for the Mischief Rule and Grey v. Pearson (1857) for the Golden Rule
  • Often paired with Fisher v. Bell (1961), Whiteley v. Chappell (1868) as Literal Rule illustrations
  • Key line: "If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense."

Cite this

Citation

Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 11 Cl & Fin 85; 8 English Reports 1034

Reported: (1844) 11 Cl & Fin 85; 8 ER 1034. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.