Eduqas A-Level Law A150QS
Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent
The Civil Courts and Civil Process
The Criminal Process
Legal Personnel
Access to Justice and Funding
Contract: Rules and Theory of Contract LawContract
Contract: Essential Requirements and FormationContract
Contract: Express and Implied TermsContract
Contract: Misrepresentation and Economic DuressContract
Contract: Discharge of ContractContract
Contract: RemediesContract
Tort: Rules and Theory of Tort LawTort
Tort: NegligenceTort
Tort: Occupiers' LiabilityTort
Tort: Torts Connected to LandTort
Tort: Vicarious LiabilityTort
Tort: Defences and RemediesTort
Criminal Law: Rules and TheoryCriminal
Criminal Law: General Elements of LiabilityCriminal
Criminal Law: Offences Against the PersonCriminal
Criminal Law: Property OffencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Capacity DefencesCriminal
Criminal Law: Necessity Defences and Preliminary OffencesCriminal
Human Rights: Rules and TheoryHuman rights
Human Rights: Protection of Rights and Freedoms in the UKHuman rights
Human Rights: Convention ProvisionsHuman rights
Human Rights: Restrictions on Convention RightsHuman rights
Human Rights: EnforcementHuman rights
Human Rights: ReformHuman rights
Statutory Interpretation
The purposive approach
- 3 things to know
- Component 1
Overview
Reading an Act for the aim it was passed to achieve rather than the gap it was passed to close, through Quintavalle, Tower Boot, Coltman and Fitzpatrick, and the constitutional objection Lord Denning's gap-filling attracted.
What you need to know
Answer each one before you reveal it.
Describe the purposive approach.
How does the purposive approach differ from the mischief rule?
Questions from this subtopic
Each one with the model answer underneath.
- 1
Describe the purposive approach.
Model answer
The purposive approach asks what Parliament intended to achieve by passing the Act. The court then reads the words in the way that best gives effect to that purpose.
- 2
How does the purposive approach differ from the mischief rule?
Model answer
The mischief rule looks backwards at the gap in the old law that the Act was passed to fill. The purposive approach looks forward to the broader aim the Act was designed to achieve.
- 3
Why has the purposive approach grown in importance?
Model answer
Membership of the European Union required courts to adopt the teleological method used by the Court of Justice. The Human Rights Act 1998 then added a further duty to read legislation compatibly with Convention rights.
- 4
What did R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] decide?
Model answer
R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] concerned an embryo created by cell nuclear replacement. The House of Lords held that such an embryo fell within the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The purpose of the Act was to regulate the creation of human embryos outside the body.
- 5
What did Jones v Tower Boot Co [1997] decide?
Model answer
Jones v Tower Boot Co [1997] held that racial harassment by fellow employees was done in the course of employment. A narrow reading would have defeated the purpose of the Race Relations Act 1976.
- 6
What did Coltman v Bibby Tankers [1988] decide?
Model answer
Coltman v Bibby Tankers [1988] held that a ship counted as equipment provided by the employer. The purpose of the Employer's Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 was to protect employees injured by defective plant.
Other ways to work this
The same content, four other ways.
What is inside Levo
Six ways to work the same material.
Every question in Statutory Interpretation, on a schedule.
Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.
Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.