Pepper v Hart [1992]
Share
Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1992] UKHL 3 is a landmark decision of the House of Lords that established the principle allowing courts to refer to statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords when interpreting ambiguous primary legislation. The case arose from a dispute over the interpretation of the Finance Act 1976, where teachers at Malvern College claimed a tax concession on fees for their children. The House of Lords, using statements in Parliament as recorded in Hansard, found in favour of the teachers. However, the decision faced criticism and subsequent limitations on its application.
Teachers at Malvern College, including John Hart, benefited from a concessionary fee scheme for their children's education. The Inland Revenue sought to tax this benefit under the Finance Act 1976. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the term cost equivalent in the Act. The teachers argued for a narrow interpretation based on marginal cost, while the Inland Revenue advocated for a broader interpretation involving average cost.
The case progressed through the High Court and Court of Appeal before reaching the House of Lords. The Lords, aware of statements in Parliament related to the Finance Act, reconvened as a 7-judge panel. In the judgment, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, supported by Lord Griffiths, allowed reference to Parliamentary material as an aid to interpreting ambiguous legislation. However, this was subject to certain conditions, including the material clearly disclosing the legislative intention and avoiding violation of parliamentary privilege.
Pepper v Hart marked a departure from the traditional rule that prohibited the use of Hansard and parliamentary debates in interpreting statutes. It broadened the sources courts could consider when faced with ambiguous legislation. The decision aimed to ascertain legislative intent and mitigate uncertainties in statutory interpretation.
However, the decision faced criticism for potential drawbacks, including increased litigation costs and challenges to the separation of powers. Subsequent cases such as Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2022) have limited the application of Pepper v Hart, leading to a more cautious approach in referring to legislative history. Despite criticism, references to Hansard have increased in the 21st century, indicating continued debate over the scope and impact of Pepper v Hart.
Teachers at Malvern College, including John Hart, benefited from a concessionary fee scheme for their children's education. The Inland Revenue sought to tax this benefit under the Finance Act 1976. The dispute centred on the interpretation of the term cost equivalent in the Act. The teachers argued for a narrow interpretation based on marginal cost, while the Inland Revenue advocated for a broader interpretation involving average cost.
The case progressed through the High Court and Court of Appeal before reaching the House of Lords. The Lords, aware of statements in Parliament related to the Finance Act, reconvened as a 7-judge panel. In the judgment, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, supported by Lord Griffiths, allowed reference to Parliamentary material as an aid to interpreting ambiguous legislation. However, this was subject to certain conditions, including the material clearly disclosing the legislative intention and avoiding violation of parliamentary privilege.
Pepper v Hart marked a departure from the traditional rule that prohibited the use of Hansard and parliamentary debates in interpreting statutes. It broadened the sources courts could consider when faced with ambiguous legislation. The decision aimed to ascertain legislative intent and mitigate uncertainties in statutory interpretation.
However, the decision faced criticism for potential drawbacks, including increased litigation costs and challenges to the separation of powers. Subsequent cases such as Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2022) have limited the application of Pepper v Hart, leading to a more cautious approach in referring to legislative history. Despite criticism, references to Hansard have increased in the 21st century, indicating continued debate over the scope and impact of Pepper v Hart.
