Pepper v. Hart Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Pepper v. Hart | 1 All E.R. 42 (1992)

In interpreting the law, should courts consider a statute’s legislative history? Although certain textualists, like the late Justice Antonin Scalia, would forcefully answer no, judges in the United States often consider legislative history to determine congressional intent and to resolve textual ambiguities. But despite being part of the same common-law tradition, England has long prohibited the practice. In Pepper versus Hart, the House of Lords reconsidered the wisdom of this policy.

Malvern College allowed employees’ children to attend the school at discounted fees. The Finance Act of nineteen seventy-six provided for taxation of the cash value of certain benefits. The government sought to tax the employees on the full value of the tuition discount. John Hart and other Malvern employees sued Pepper, the Inspector of Taxes. They contended that the correct measure of the benefit was the cost to the school. Because the school wasn’t at capacity, the students attending at a discount didn’t take spaces from students who would’ve otherwise paid full tuition. The marginal cost to the school was thus minimal, less than the discounted tuition fee, meaning that no tax should be imposed.

The Special Commissioners ruled for Hart, but the High Court of Justice reversed, which the Court of Appeal affirmed. The case then went to a five-member panel of the House of Lords, which initially affirmed. The House of Lords then learned of records of parliamentary proceedings surrounding the passage of the Finance Act that favored Hart’s interpretation of the law. At the time, English law didn’t permit consideration of parliamentary material in interpreting statutes. Use of such material was considered a breach of parliamentary privilege under Article Nine of the sixteen eighty-eight Bill of Rights. The House of Lords reconvened a seven-member panel.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/pepper-...

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/pepper-...

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...

Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o...

Facebook   / quimbeedotcom  

Twitter   / quimbeedotcom  

#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries