LANDMARK CASE

Pepper v. Hart

[1993] AC 593 · House of Lords (UK) · Interpretation

At a glance

  • Citation: [1993] AC 593
  • Court: House of Lords (UK)
  • Area of law: Interpretation
  • In one line: Yes, if the statute is ambiguous and the minister's statement is clear.

1 Facts

Teachers disputed tax on fee concessions for their children.

2 Issue

Can courts refer to parliamentary debates to interpret a statute?

3 What the court decided

Yes, if the statute is ambiguous and the minister's statement is clear.

4 Why it matters

Influenced use of legislative history.

5 Think about it

When is it risky to rely on debates?

6 Analyse it yourself

Read the full judgment from an official source or a law database, then brief it in seven steps: facts, issues, arguments, decision, ratio, obiter and significance. Always check the citation before you rely on it.

7 More cases on Interpretation

All 366 landmark cases · Today's Case of the Day · Weekly quiz

← People's Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India (Asiad Workers)Perkins Eastman Architects v. HSCC (India) →

A short teaching summary for students. Educational content only, not legal advice.