Heydon's Case

Last updated

Heydon's Case
Coat of Arms of England (1558-1603).svg
Court Exchequer of Pleas
DecidedEaster Term, 1584
Citation(s) EWHC Exch J36
3 Co Rep 7a
76 ER 637
Pasch 26 Eliz
plea began 20 Eliz Rot 140
Case history
Prior action(s)Pasch 26 Eliz, plea began 20 Eliz Rot 140
Court membership
Judge(s) sitting Roger Manwood CB
Keywords
Mischief rule

Heydon's Case (1584) 76 ER 637 is considered a landmark case: it was the first case to use what would come to be called the mischief rule of statutory interpretation. The mischief rule is more flexible than the golden or literal rule, in that the mischief rule requires judges to look over four tasks to ensure that gaps within the law are covered.

Contents

Facts of the case

This is a construction of leases, life estates, and statutes.

Ottery College, [lower-alpha 1] a religious college, gave a tenancy in a manor also called Ottery to a man, Ware, and his son, also referred to as Ware. They are referred to in the case report as "Ware the father and Ware the son". [1]

The tenancy was established by copyhold. Ware and his son held their copyhold for their lives, subject to the will of the lord and the custom of the manor. The Wares’ copyhold was part of a parcel also occupied by some tenants at will. Later, the college leased the same parcel to another man, named Heydon, for a period of eighty years, in return for rents equal to the traditional rent for the components of the parcel.

Less than a year after the parcel had been leased to Heydon, Parliament enacted the Suppression of Religious Houses Act 1535 (Act of Dissolution). The statute had the effect of dissolving many religious colleges, including Ottery College, which lost its lands and rents to Henry VIII. However, a provision in the Act kept in force, for a term of life, any grants that had been made more than a year before the enactment of the statute.

The Court of Exchequer found that the grant to the Wares was protected by the relevant provision of the Act of Dissolution, but that the lease to Heydon was void.

Significance of the case

The ruling was based on an important discussion of the relationship of a statute to the pre-existing common law. The court concluded that the purpose of the statute was to cure a mischief resulting from a defect in the common law. Therefore, the court concluded, the remedy of the statute was limited to curing that defect. Judges are supposed to construe statutes by seeking the true intent of the makers of the Act, which is presumed to be pro bono publico , or intent for the public good.

Lord Coke described the process through which the court must interpret legislation:

For the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law), four things are to be discerned and considered:

  • (1st). What was the common law before the making of the Act?
  • (2nd). What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide.
  • (3rd). What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth. And,
  • (4th). The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief, and pro privato commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico. [2]

See also

Notes

  1. Some editions of Lord Coke's works give the name of the college and manor as "Otlery"

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Copyhold</span> Customary land tenure in a manorial estate

Copyhold was a form of customary land ownership common from the Late Middle Ages into modern times in England. The name for this type of land tenure is derived from the act of giving a copy of the relevant title deed that is recorded in the manorial court roll to the tenant; not the actual land deed itself. The legal owner of the manor land remained the mesne lord, who was legally the copyholder, according to the titles and customs written down in the manorial roll. In return for being given land, a copyhold tenant was required to carry out specific manorial duties or services. The specific rights and duties of copyhold tenants varied greatly from one manor to another and many were established by custom. By the 19th century, many customary duties had been replaced with the payment of rent.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lease</span> Contractual agreement in which an assets owner lets someone else use it in exchange for payment

A lease is a contractual arrangement calling for the user to pay the owner for the use of an asset. Property, buildings and vehicles are common assets that are leased. Industrial or business equipment are also leased. Basically a lease agreement is a contract between two parties: the lessor and the lessee. The lessor is the legal owner of the asset, while the lessee obtains the right to use the asset in return for regular rental payments. The lessee also agrees to abide by various conditions regarding their use of the property or equipment. For example, a person leasing a car may agree to the condition that the car will only be used for personal use.

A leasehold estate is an ownership of a temporary right to hold land or property in which a lessee or a tenant has rights of real property by some form of title from a lessor or landlord. Although a tenant does hold rights to real property, a leasehold estate is typically considered personal property.

Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation both to legislation enacted by the legislature and to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.

The mischief rule is one of three rules of statutory interpretation traditionally applied by English courts, the other two being the "plain meaning rule" and the "golden rule". It is used to determine the exact scope of the "mischief" that the statute in question has set out to remedy, and to guide the court in ruling in a manner which will "suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy".

The golden rule in English law is one of the rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by the English courts. The rule can be used to avoid the consequences of a literal interpretation of the wording of a statute when such an interpretation would lead to a manifest absurdity or to a result that is contrary to principles of public policy. The rule can be applied in two different ways, named respectively the narrow approach and the broad approach.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tenures Abolition Act 1660</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Tenures Abolition Act 1660, sometimes known as the Statute of Tenures, was an Act of the Parliament of England which changed the nature of several types of feudal land tenure in England. The long title of the Act was An Act takeing away the Court of Wards and Liveries, and Tenures in Capite, and by Knights-service, and Purveyance, and for settling a Revenue upon his Majesty in Lieu thereof.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canadian contract law</span> Contracts in Canada

Canadian contract law is composed of two parallel systems: a common law framework outside Québec and a civil law framework within Québec. Outside Québec, Canadian contract law is derived from English contract law, though it has developed distinctly since Canadian Confederation in 1867. While Québecois contract law was originally derived from that which existed in France at the time of Québec's annexation into the British Empire, it was overhauled and codified first in the Civil Code of Lower Canada and later in the current Civil Code of Quebec, which codifies most elements of contract law as part of its provisions on the broader law of obligations. Individual common law provinces have codified certain contractual rules in a Sale of Goods Act, resembling equivalent statutes elsewhere in the Commonwealth. As most aspects of contract law in Canada are the subject of provincial jurisdiction under the Canadian Constitution, contract law may differ even between the country's common law provinces and territories. Conversely; as the law regarding bills of exchange and promissory notes, trade and commerce, maritime law, and banking among other related areas is governed by federal law under Section 91 of the Constitution Act, 1867; aspects of contract law pertaining to these topics are harmonised between Québec and the common law provinces.

<i>Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust</i>

Bruton v London and Quadrant Housing Trust[1999] UKHL 26 is an English land law case that examined the rights of a 'tenant' in a situation where the 'landlord', a charitable housing association had no authority to grant a tenancy, but in which the 'tenant' sought to enforce the duty to repair on the association implied under landlord and tenant statutes. The effect of the case is to create the relationship of de facto landlord and tenant between the parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Extinguishment</span> Destruction or nullification of a right or contract

In contract law, extinguishment is the destruction of a right or contract. If the subject of the contract is destroyed, then the contract may be made void. Extinguishment occurs in a variety of contracts, such as land contracts, debts, rents, and right of ways. A right may be extinguished by nullifying that right or, in the case of a debt, discharged by payment in full or through settlement.

The history of English land law can be traced back to Roman times. Throughout the Early Middle Ages, where England came under rule of post-Roman chieftains and Saxon monarchs, land was the dominant source of personal wealth. English land law transformed further from the Saxon days, particularly during the post-Norman Invasion feudal encastellation and the Industrial Revolution. As the political power of the landed aristocracy diminished and modern legislation increasingly made land a social form of wealth, subject to extensive social regulation such as for housing, national parks, and agriculture.

Seaford Court Estates Ltd v Asher [1949] 2 KB 481 is a case English law concerning interpretation of an Act of Parliament.

<i>Street v Mountford</i>

Street v Mountford[1985] UKHL 4 is an English land law case from the House of Lords. It set out principles to determine whether someone who occupied a property had a tenancy, or only a licence. This mattered for the purpose of statutory tenant rights to a reasonable rent, and had a wider significance as a lease had "proprietary" status and would bind third parties.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Landlord–tenant law</span> Law that details rights and duties of landlords and tenants

Landlord–tenant law is the field of law that deals with the rights and duties of landlords and tenants.

The purposive approach is an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation under which common law courts interpret an enactment within the context of the law's purpose.

<i>AG Securities v Vaughan</i>

AG Securities v VaughanandAntoniades v Villiers[1988] UKHL 8 were two House of Lords cases decided in the same ruling, which together clarified and confirmed as pivotal the role of exclusive possession in identifying what constitutes a lease for the purposes of English land law.

<i>Earl of Oxfords case</i>

Earl of Oxford's case (1615) 21 ER 485 is a foundational case for the common law world, that held equity takes precedence over the common law.

Rent control in Scotland is based upon the statutory codes relating to private sector residential tenancies. Although not strictly within the private sector, tenancies granted by housing associations, etc., are dealt with as far as is appropriate in this context. Controlling prices, along with security of tenure and oversight by an independent regulator or the courts, is a part of rent regulation.

The South African law of lease is an area of the legal system in South Africa which describes the rules applicable to a contract of lease. This is broadly defined as a synallagmatic contract between two parties, the lessor and the lessee, in terms of which one, the lessor, binds himself to give the other, the lessee, the temporary use and enjoyment of a thing, in whole or in part, or of his services or those of another person; the lessee, meanwhile, binds himself to pay a sum of money as compensation, or rent, for that use and enjoyment. The law of lease is often discussed as a counterpart to the law of sale.

References

  1. England and Wales High Court (Exchequer Court), Heydon's Case (1584), EWHC Exch J36 (1 January 1584), paragraph 2, accessed 17 December 2022
  2. Quoted by The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission in The Interpretation of Statutes, page 14, published 9 June 1969, accessed 17 December 2022