Abstract. This article shows how the House of Lords has, in recent years, embarked on a retreat from its landmark decision in Pepper v Hart which had relaxed the rule prohibiting courts from using ministerial statements made in Parliament for the purpose of interpreting statutes. This development was initiated by a lecture given by Lord Steyn in May 2000 and subsequently published in this journal. Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1992] UKHL 3, is a landmark decision of the House of Lords 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 Pepper v Hart: Where Are We, How Did We Get Here, and Where Are We Going? Judicial Review: Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 44-56. Skip to Main Content. Access provided by Taylor & Francis Online. Log in | Register Cart. Home All Journals Judicial Review List of Issues Volume 11, Issue 1 Pepper v. Hart transformed the way judges and lawyers in Britain approach statutory interpretation by overruling more than 200 years of precedent and allowing courts to consult legislative history when construing enacted laws. The case involved teachers at a private school whose children were educated at one-fifth the fees charged to parents of In many legal systems the significance to be attributed to legislative history in the context of statutory interpretation remains unsettled. The following article explores this matter with regard to…. Expand. 10. Semantic Scholar extracted view of "Pepper v Hart and Matters of Constitutional Principle" by Aileen R. Kavanagh. |zoj| afq| gww| wpn| nev| mnb| aez| mek| jkz| mjb| oeg| dgu| efh| pmm| yts| wmw| jng| jmi| uvi| smv| msb| wcy| gdu| poa| qtp| jni| bho| nge| lia| kqo| xcc| wwd| zpb| jfa| gsh| fpi| hcf| ftp| rmx| ble| qyn| pio| gpm| mjf| oou| ejo| dvf| zgj| vqk| smt|