levo

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.

Your recallNot started
Numbers

What did R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] decide?

Key term

Describe the purposive approach.

Key term

How does the purposive approach differ from the mischief rule?

Questions from this subtopic

Each one with the model answer underneath.

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

1Closed book
2Open book
3Closed book

The 3-step method, run for you

Answer cold, learn it, then prove it stuck. Levo tracks the jump between your first attempt and your last.

Parliamentary and European Law Making
Delegated Legislation
Statutory Interpretation
Judicial Precedent

Cram a whole paper in one sitting

Sort every topic into what you know and what you do not, then drill only the weak ones.

The court sits in .
StrasbourgLondonParis

Blank Blitz makes facts automatic

Rapid timed gap-fills on the terms and numbers you need to recall without thinking.

AAn interim injunction restrains publication before trial.
BPublication cannot be undone.
CAn injunction may be the only effective remedy.

Build It gets the exam shape right

Assemble a full-mark answer from its marking points, in the order an examiner wants them.

A Public Bill changes the general law.
TrueFalse

Test It catches misconceptions

Spot the fault in a statement. The traps are the mistakes students actually make.

721941163128510

Brain Breaks between sessions

Short focus games to reset attention, so the next set lands better than the last.

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.