Pepper v Hart UKHL 3, is a landmark decision on the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation. The court established the principle that when primary legislation is ambiguous then, in certain circumstances, the court may refer to statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the legislation.
About Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart in brief
Pepper v Hart UKHL 3, is a landmark decision on the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation. The court established the principle that when primary legislation is ambiguous then, in certain circumstances, the court may refer to statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the legislation. John Hart and nine others were teachers at Malvern College who benefited from a “concessionary fee” scheme that allowed their children to be educated at the college for one-fifth of the normal fees. The Inland Revenue attempted to tax this benefit based on the Finance Act 1976. There was a dispute over the correct interpretation of the Act. The Special Commissioners charged with assessing the tax found in favour of Hart, but both the High Court of Justice and Court of Appeal of England and Wales found in. favour of the Inland revenue. The case then went to the House. of Lords, which, making use of statements in Parliament as recorded in Hansard, found in favor of Hart. Lord Mackay, dissenting, argued that Hansard should not be considered admissible evidence because of the time and expense involved in a lawyer having to look up every debate and discussion on a particular statute when giving legal advice or preparing a case. The decision met with a mixed reception. While judges cautiously accepted the judgment, some legal academics argued that it violated rules of evidence, damaged the separation of powers between the executive and Parliament and caused additional expense in cases.
Since Lord Steyn’s lecture, several judicial decisions have limited the. use of Pepper by the courts. The result of these changes, according to Stefan Vogenauer, is that the ruling has almost become meaningless. It was found, however, that ministers had made statements in the Commons which supported the idea that such “benefits” should be excluded from tax. The case was then heard by the Court of. Appeal, which issued its judgment on 13 November 1990. At the end of the preliminary hearing, judges became aware that the Treasury’s Financial Secretary, Robert Sheldon, became aware of the case. They initially agreed with the majority of the Court. of Appeal by a 4–1 majority. They agreed that the case was not to be heard by a 5-judge panel of the Supreme Court of England. and confirmed that, based on. the Act’s text, “any expense incurred in or in connection with its provision, and includes a proper proportion of any expense. of the provision, including the average cost of providing it, was to be treated as a benefit.’’ ‘Pepper v Hart: A Re-examination’ was delivered on 16 May 2000 and titled “Pepper: The Ruling on the Rulings of the Lords’ Decision on the Use of Hansard’. ‘The scope of Pepper v Hart has been reduced to such an extent that the. ruling has nearly become meaningless’, said Stefan.
You want to know more about Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart?
This page is based on the article Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart published in Wikipedia (as of Nov. 04, 2020) and was automatically summarized using artificial intelligence.
