Heydon's Case [1584] EWHC Exch J36

Court: Court of Exchequer

Facts: Ottery College granted a tenancy in a manor to Ware the father and Ware the son. This tenancy, established by copyhold, was subject to the lord's will and the manor's custom. The same parcel was later leased to Heydon for eighty years. Parliament enacted the Suppression of Religious Houses Act 1535, dissolving religious colleges. However, the Act protected grants made over a year before its enactment. The Court of Exchequer found the grant to the Wares protected but declared Heydon's lease void.

Issue: Whether the interpretation of the statute should address the defects in common law and what the true intent of the lawmakers was.

Held: The Court emphasized that statutes aim to remedy defects in the common law. The mischief rule was introduced to guide interpretation by examining the common law before the Act, identifying the defect, understanding Parliament's remedy, and determining the true reason behind the remedy.

Key Judicial Statement: Lord Coke outlined the process of interpreting legislation, stating: “The judges' role is to interpret statutes by seeking the true intent of the lawmakers, presumed to be for the public good (pro bono publico). The aim is to suppress mischief, advance the remedy, and prevent evasions that perpetuate the mischief.”

💡Leveluplaw: The mischief rule requires judges to interpret statutes by considering the problem the statute intended to address, the defect in the common law, and the remedy provided by Parliament. This ensures that laws effectively cover the identified gaps and the true intent of the lawmakers is achieved.