Advantages and Disadvantages of the Purposive Rule
- teachlawhub
- Feb 2
- 4 min read
In our previous blog post we explored the different rules that are used by judges to interpret the words or phrases of an Act of Parliament. You can access this blog here.
Within this blog we are going to delve further into the rules of statutory interpretation and evaluate the use of the purposive rule. We will explore the advantages and disadvantages of the purposive rule in detail.
You can access the evaluation of each of the rules of interpretation by clicking each of the links below.
The Purposive Rule
The purposive rule requires judges to interpret legislation by considering the overall purpose Parliament intended to achieve, rather than focusing narrowly on specific wording or a particular mischief.
Advantages of the Purposive Rule
A major advantage of the purposive approach is that it ensures that the Acts of Parliament that operate within the legal system are in line with Parliament’s true intentions. When judges use the purposive rule they look beyond the literal meaning of words and consider the broader aim that Parliament was seeking to achieve. This prevents absurd decisions that technically follow the wording of an Act but ultimately undermine and go against its purpose/Parliament's intentions when they were creating the Act. The purposive rule ensures that legislation achieves meaningful and fair outcomes.
This is clearly demonstrated in Jones v Tower Boot Co Ltd (1997). The Court of Appeal considered whether an employer could be liable for racial harassment committed by an employee in the course of employment under the Race Relations Act 1976. A literal interpretation would have excluded such behaviour, as it did not form part of the employee’s job duties. However, by adopting a purposive approach, the court recognised that Parliament’s intention was to provide effective protection against workplace discrimination. Interpreting the phrase broadly and in line with Parliament's intentions, ensured that the legislation fulfilled its purpose, rather than allowing employers to avoid liability through technical wording.
The purposive rule prevents absurd and unjust results, this is because it allows judges to avoid rigid interpretations based on dictionary definitions, that often go against the purpose of the Act and Parliament's intentions. By focusing on what Parliament intended to achieve, judges can ensure that the law operates sensibly and fairly, even where the wording is unclear, incomplete, or outdated. This avoids the creation of loopholes that Parliament could not have intended and promotes justice.
This advantage can be seen in the case of R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health (2003), the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 referred to embryos created by fertilisation, but did not anticipate cloning technology. A literal interpretation would have excluded cloned embryos from regulation, creating an absurd gap in the law. By adopting a purposive rule, the House of Lords ensured that all embryos were regulated, avoiding an unjust and illogical outcome.
Another important advantage of the purposive rule is that it allows the law to keep up to date with modern society. Parliament cannot always anticipate or predict future developments, particularly in areas involving rapid technological or social change. The purposive approach enables judges to interpret legislation in a way that reflects contemporary realities, ensuring that the law remains relevant and effective.
This is clearly illustrated in Quintavalle. At the time the Act was passed, Parliament could not have foreseen the development of cloning technology. However, by interpreting the legislation purposively, the court ensured that the law adapted to scientific advances while still remaining in line with Parliament’s intentions of regulating embryos. This demonstrates how the purposive rule enables the law to evolve alongside society rather than becoming outdated.
Finally, the purposive rule is more flexible than the mischief rule because judges are not confined to identifying a specific defect in the previous law. Instead, they can consider the overall purpose of the legislation and apply this approach to any Act of Parliament, including those that are not reforming Acts. This broader scope gives judges greater freedom to ensure justice is achieved across a wide range of cases.
Disadvantages of the Purposive Rule
A major disadvantage of the purposive rule/approach is that it reduces certainty and predictability in the law. This is because judges have a wide discretion to interpret legislation based on purpose, the can often change the meanings of words or phrases in an Act of Parliament when interpreting in line with Parliament's intentions. This makes it difficult for lawyers to advise clients and for individuals to predict whether their conduct will be lawful, undermining the rule of law.
The purposive rule can be criticised for undermining parliamentary sovereignty because judges may effectively create law rather than interpret it. By extending or modifying the meaning of statutory words to reflect what they believe Parliament intended, judges risk exceeding their constitutional role, when using this approach judges can be criticised as making the law. Critics argue that such significant changes to statutory meaning should be made by Parliament itself, not the judiciary.
In the case of Coltman v Bibby Tankers the court extended the scope of the legislation and the meaning of the word equipment to include a ship, even though this was not explicitly stated in the Act. Whilst this ensured a fair outcome in the case, it also demonstrates how judges can reshape the law, raising concerns about judicial law making and the impact of this on parliamentary supremacy.
The purposive rule relies heavily on judicial discretion when deciding what Parliament’s intentions were when creating the Act of Parliament. When using the purposive approach judges must decide what they think Parliament intended when creating the Act of Parliament, often without clear guidance, which increases the risk of subjective interpretation. Different judges may reach different conclusions about the purpose of the same legislation or what Parliament intended and this can ultimately lead to inconsistent outcomes.
Finally, the purposive rule/approach is applied inconsistently, this is because not all judges agree that it is constitutionally appropriate. Some judges believe their role is limited to interpreting the law as written, rather than adapting it to achieve justice. Lord Scarman famously stated that a judge’s duty is to interpret and apply the law, not to change it to meet their own view of justice. This disagreement leads to inconsistency and unpredictability in statutory interpretation, weakening certainty and potentially leading to unfairness between cases.
Click below for the Free TeachLaw Student Activity Pack
