## Introduction

The purposive approach asks courts to read legislation in a way that best gives effect to what Parliament set out to achieve. Rather than stopping at the ordinary meaning of the words, judges look at the Act’s scheme, context, and the social problem the statute was meant to tackle. This may include consulting extrinsic materials in limited circumstances, such as ministerial statements in Hansard following Pepper v Hart, and reading legislation consistently with EU law (for retained EU law) or Convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998.

Used carefully, the approach helps avoid results that would defeat a statute’s aim. It sits alongside other methods, including the literal and mischief rules, and it is bounded by respect for parliamentary supremacy and the text chosen by Parliament.

## What You’ll Learn

- What the purposive approach is and when to apply it
- A simple step-by-step method you can use in advice, drafting, and exams
- Internal and external aids: when Hansard, Law Commission reports, and Explanatory Notes may be used
- How the purposive approach relates to the literal and mischief rules
- The role of EU-conforming interpretation and s.3 Human Rights Act 1998
- Leading cases: Heydon’s Case, Pepper v Hart, Robinson, Pickstone, Litster
- Practical limits and safeguards to avoid judicial overreach

## Core Concepts

### How the purposive approach works

At its simplest, the purposive approach asks: what objective does the provision serve, and which reading best serves that objective while staying within the statute’s language and structure?

A workable method:

1. Identify the problem and the remedy
   - Use Heydon’s Case (1584) to frame the questions:
     - What was the common law before the Act?
     - What defect did the Act aim to cure?
     - What remedy did Parliament provide?
     - Which reading suppresses the problem and advances the remedy?

2. Read the provision in its statutory setting
   - Check:
     - Long and short titles, preambles, headings, and schedules
     - Definitions and related sections across the Act
     - The overall scheme and how your provision fits within it

3. Consider extrinsic materials where allowed
   - Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 permits reference to Hansard if:
     - The wording is ambiguous, obscure, or leads to absurdity; and
     - The ministerial statement is clear and directly addresses the point; and
     - The statement is reliable.
   - Other helpful materials include Law Commission reports, White Papers, and Explanatory Notes. These are persuasive, not binding.

4. Choose the reading that best serves the goal without rewriting the statute
   - The court can prefer a broader or narrower meaning if both are linguistically possible.
   - It cannot contradict plain words or create a fresh scheme.

5. EU and human rights contexts
   - EU-conforming reading: For retained EU law and implementing measures, courts often prefer a reading consistent with relevant EU instruments (see Pickstone and Litster).
   - Human rights reading: Under s.3 HRA 1998, legislation must be read compatibly with Convention rights “so far as possible”. Courts may adopt a strong reading that fits the Act’s scheme (e.g., Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza), but cannot cross into wholesale redrafting.

### Sources the court may use

Internal aids (always relevant)

- Long title, preamble, headings, and arrangement of sections
- Definitions, interpretation sections, and schedules
- The overall structure and relationship between provisions

External aids (used with care)

- Hansard (Pepper v Hart conditions must be met)
- Explanatory Notes, White Papers, Green Papers
- Law Commission and other official reports
- International treaties and EU materials where applicable
- Previous case law on the same or similar wording

Weight and reliability

- Clear statutory text carries the most weight.
- External aids assist where the text reasonably bears more than one meaning.

### Purposive, literal and mischief: how they relate

- Literal rule: Start with the ordinary meaning. If the wording is clear and produces a workable result, courts often stop there.
- Mischief rule: Focuses on the specific defect the statute addresses (Heydon’s Case). It is narrower and historically grounded.
- Purposive approach: Wider focus on the Act’s goal and scheme, used to choose between possible meanings and avoid outcomes that frustrate the statutory aim.

In practice, judges usually begin with the text, then consider context and purpose. These methods are tools, not rigid stages.

### Limits and criticisms

- Predictability vs fairness: A generous purposive reading can improve fairness but may reduce certainty if it departs too far from ordinary meaning.
- Parliamentary supremacy: Courts must respect the words Parliament chose. The purposive approach is not a licence to legislate.
- Practical constraints: Parliamentary materials can be incomplete or conflicting; not every policy statement reflects what Parliament finally enacted.
- Subjectivity: Judges must avoid importing personal preferences. Reasoning should be grounded in the statutory scheme and authoritative materials.
- Special areas: In criminal and tax contexts, courts are cautious about stretching language. Ambiguity can be resolved purposively, but clear text prevails.

## Key Examples or Case Studies

### Robinson v Secretary of State for Northern Ireland [2002] UKHL 32

- Issue: The Northern Ireland Act 1998 required election of the First and Deputy First Ministers within six weeks. A strict reading pointed to automatic consequences after the time limit.
- Decision: The House of Lords read the Act “generously and purposively” as a constitutional statute. The time limit guided the process but did not trigger automatic dissolution of the Assembly.
- Why it matters: Constitutional statutes may be read with a broader purposive lens to keep institutions functioning as intended.

### Litster v Forth Dry Dock & Engineering Co Ltd [1990] 1 AC 546 (HL)

- Issue: Workers were dismissed shortly before a transfer of an undertaking. A strictly literal reading of the UK regulations would deny protection.
- Decision: The House of Lords read the regulations purposively to give effect to the EU Directive, treating the employees as employed “immediately before” the transfer.
- Why it matters: Domestic provisions implementing EU law should be read to achieve the Directive’s purpose where the wording allows it.

### Pickstone v Freemans plc [1989] AC 66

- Issue: Equal pay claims under domestic regulations did not neatly track the relevant EU obligation on work of equal value.
- Decision: The House of Lords preferred a purposive reading aligning UK regulations with EU law so that women doing work of equal value could bring claims.
- Why it matters: UK legislation was read to meet EU standards where a compatible interpretation was possible.

### Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993] AC 593

- Issue: Could courts consult Hansard to resolve ambiguity in a tax statute?
- Decision: Yes, in limited circumstances. Where the text is ambiguous, obscure, or produces absurdity, clear ministerial statements may be used as an aid.
- Why it matters: Sets the conditions for using parliamentary materials to identify purpose and resolve uncertainty.

### R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13

- Issue: Did the term “embryo” in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 cover embryos created by cell nuclear replacement (not foreseen in 1990)?
- Decision: Yes. The House of Lords read the term in a way that met the Act’s purpose of regulating embryo creation and use, even with new techniques.
- Why it matters: Purpose can inform the application of statutory language to unforeseen scientific developments.

## Practical Applications

- Start with the text
  - Identify the relevant section, definitions, and related provisions.
  - Read the whole scheme; do not isolate a single phrase.

- State the statutory aim
  - Summarise the problem addressed and the remedy provided, using Heydon’s Case as a framework.
  - Use Explanatory Notes and official reports for context (not as substitutes for the text).

- Check if external aids are permitted
  - Hansard: apply the Pepper v Hart test. Quote only clear, targeted ministerial statements.
  - For retained EU law: consider the Directive or EU measure and its objective, then read the UK provision consistently where possible.
  - Human rights: apply s.3 HRA 1998 to prefer a Convention-compatible meaning that fits the statute’s scheme.

- Choose between competing readings
  - Select the meaning that best serves the statutory goal and aligns with the scheme.
  - Avoid introducing wording that the statute cannot bear.

- Record and justify
  - Cite the specific materials relied upon (sections, reports, Hansard columns).
  - Explain why your reading fits both the language and the purpose.

- Common pitfalls to avoid
  - Using purpose to contradict clear words.
  - Treating ministerial comments as if they were enacted.
  - Over-reliance on policy arguments unmoored from the statutory text.

- Exam and practice tips
  - Structure: text → context → purpose → aids → preferred meaning → limits.
  - Always acknowledge the counter-reading and explain why it is less consistent with the Act’s aim or scheme.
  - In constitutional, EU-derived, and human rights contexts, signpost the stronger purposive lean but stay within the language.

## Summary Checklist

- Identify the statutory problem and remedy (Heydon’s Case)
- Read the provision in context: titles, definitions, related sections, schedules
- Confirm whether extrinsic materials can be used (Pepper v Hart test)
- Consider EU-conforming and s.3 HRA readings where relevant
- Choose a meaning the words can bear that best serves the Act’s goal
- Do not contradict clear text or redesign the scheme
- Justify with precise citations to text and materials
- Note limits: certainty, parliamentary supremacy, criminal and tax contexts

## Quick Reference

| Concept                          | Authority                   | Key takeaway                                                        |
| -------------------------------- | --------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Mischief framework               | Heydon’s Case (1584)        | Identify defect and remedy; prefer the reading that cures it        |
| Hansard use                      | Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 | Allowed if ambiguity/obscurity/absurdity; rely on clear statements  |
| EU-conforming interpretation     | Pickstone; Litster          | Read UK provisions to meet EU purpose where wording allows          |
| Constitutional purposive reading | Robinson [2002] UKHL 32     | Read constitutional statutes broadly to keep institutions working   |
| Human rights reading             | HRA 1998 s.3                | Prefer Convention-compatible meanings that fit the statute’s scheme |

Purposive Approach to Statutory Interpretation