| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1993 SLG 233 1993 SLD 233 1993 SCMR 1019 (1994) 69 TAX 159 |
House of Lord
Appeal from the Court of Appeal, decision dated: 26-11-1992.dates of hearing: 4-11-1991; 8th to 11th, 17th, 18th Juneand 26-11-1992
LORD MACKAY OF CLASHFEM, L. C, LORD KEITH OF KINKEL, LORD BRIDGE OF HARWICH, LORD GRIFFITHS, LORD ACKNER, LORD OLIVER OF AYLMERTON AND LORD BROWNEWILKINSON
Stephen Oliver Q.C. and Jeremy Woolf for the Taxpayers at the first hearing. Alain Moses Q.C. and Timothy Brennan for the Crown at the first hearing. Anthony Lester Q.C. Jeremy Woolf and Clive Sheldon for the Taxpayers at the second hearing. Sir Nichola
Appeal from the Court of Appeal, decision dated: 26-11-1992.dates of hearing: 4-11-1991; 8th to 11th, 17th, 18th Juneand 26-11-1992
LORD MACKAY OF CLASHFEM, L. C, LORD KEITH OF KINKEL, LORD BRIDGE OF HARWICH, LORD GRIFFITHS, LORD ACKNER, LORD OLIVER OF AYLMERTON AND LORD BROWNEWILKINSON
Stephen Oliver Q.C. and Jeremy Woolf for the Taxpayers at the first hearing. Alain Moses Q.C. and Timothy Brennan for the Crown at the first hearing. Anthony Lester Q.C. Jeremy Woolf and Clive Sheldon for the Taxpayers at the second hearing. Sir Nichola
PEPPER (INSPECTOR OF TAXES)vsHART
Law: Income Tax Act, 1922
Section:
(a) Statute----Construction---Reference to Parliamentary proceedings as aid to, permissible---Roll of Parliamentary reports and other material in identifying the mischief aimed at, stated-- Statute law consists of the words that Parliament has enacted. It is for the Courts to construe those words and it is the Court's duty in so doing to give effect to the intention of Parliament in using those words. It is an inescapable fact that, despite all the care taken in passing legislation, some statutory provisions when applied to the circumstances under consideration in any specific case are found to be ambiguous. Why in such a case should the Courts blind themselves to a clear indication of what Parliament intended in using those words? The Court cannot attach a meaning to words which they cannot bear, but if the words are capable of bearing more than one meaning why should not' Parliament's true intention be enforced rather than thwarted. The Courts can now look at white papers and official reports for the purpose of finding the `mischief sought to be corrected, although not at draft clauses or proposals for the remedying of such mischief. A ministerial statement made in Parliament is an equally authoritative source of such information: why should the Courts be cut off from this source of information as to the mischief aimed at? In any event, the distinction between looking at reports to identify the mischief aimed at but not to find the intention of Parliament in enacting the legislation is highly artificial. The conclusion, therefore, is that parliamentary material can be used as an aid to the construction of statute where: (i) legislation is ambiguous or obscure, or leads to an absurdity; (ii) the material relied upon consists of one or more statements by a Minister or other prompter of the Bill together if necessary with such other parliamentary material as is necessary to understand such statements and their effect; (iii) the statements relied upon are clear. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ---- Purposive approach---Looking at parliamentary debates as an aid---Need for looking at an extraneous material bearing upon the background against which theβ¦
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492