Legal Method

Read through the attached extracts from Jack v. Wessex County Council [1999] and answer the following questions:

1. What were the material facts in the case?

The claimant’s car skidded on a patch of black ice resulting in a crash. The driver is now almost fully paralysed and claiming breach of duty by Wessex County Council for failing to maintain the highway.

2. Explain, in your own words, the legal issue(s) in the case

Whether the duty imposed under section 41(1) of the Highways Act 1980 to ‘’maintain’’ the road extends to keeping it free of ice.

3. Which technique(s) of statutory interpretation, rules of language and/or presumptions do you consider that Lord Hoffmann employed in the case? Give reasons for your answer.

Two types of interpretation techniques were used in this case; the literal rule and the mischief rule.

The literal rule was applied in two areas of the judgement; firstly in line 38 to reduce the definition of ‘maintain’ (in s329(1) of the Highways Act 1980) to its basic, day-to-day meaning. This rule was also seen later in the extract in line 174 where Lord Hoffman stated that the draftsman of the legislation intended no difference between ‘maintain’ and ‘repair’.

The mischief rule, which reads into the intent of parliament behind the legislation, was used in line 128, to transfer all liability (for unmaintained roads) from ‘the inhabitants at large’ to the highway authorities.

4. To what aids of statutory interpretation did Lord Hoffmann refer? Your answer must indicate whether such aids are ‘intrinsic’ or ‘extrinsic’.

Lord Hoffman used two instances of intrinsic aids in his interpretation. Firstly, he interpreted the definition of ‘maintain’ using the context of the legislation. Additionally, the long title of the Highways Act 1959 (line 45) was also used to decipher parliament’s meaning behind the word. These are both examples of Noscitur A Sociis; gathering the meaning of a phrase from those...