판결 이유
Where primary legislation is ambiguous or obscure, or leads to an absurdity, the court may refer to statements made in Parliament (Hansard) by the minister or promoter of the Bill to ascertain the intention of Parliament, provided the statements relied upon are clear.
사실관계
Schoolmasters at Malvern College were taxed on the benefit of reduced school fees for their children. The question was whether the taxable benefit should be calculated on the basis of the marginal cost to the school (which was negligible, as places would otherwise be empty) or the average cost. The legislation was ambiguous.
판결 요약
The House of Lords departed from the previous exclusionary rule in Davis v Johnson and held that Hansard could be used as an aid to statutory interpretation in limited circumstances. Lord Browne-Wilkinson set out the conditions: the legislation must be ambiguous or obscure, or lead to absurdity; the material relied upon must consist of statements by a minister or the promoter of the Bill; and the statements must be clear. The appeal was allowed and the benefit was taxed at marginal cost.
주요 인용문
"The exclusionary rule should be relaxed so as to permit reference to Parliamentary materials where (a) legislation is ambiguous or obscure, or leads to an absurdity; (b) the material relied upon consists of one or more statements by a Minister or other promoter of the Bill together if necessary with such other Parliamentary material as is necessary to understand such statements and their effect; (c) the statements relied upon are clear."
— Lord Browne-Wilkinson
후속 처리
Regularly applied but courts have emphasised the strict conditions must be met. In practice, Hansard references are used sparingly.
In Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2003], the House of Lords warned against over-use of Hansard, noting it should not become a routine part of statutory interpretation.