Sunday, May 18, 2014

Pepper v. Hart case brief summary

Pepper v. Hart case brief summary, UK (1990)
a)       Question regarding the interpretation of a statute outlining the appropriate taxation for teachers whose children attend their place of employment for free. The court was debating whether the use legislative history to determine the meaning of the statutory language. The court held, changing years of practice, that they would use the reports from Parliament regarding this statute to come to a decision in the case.
b)      The Finance Act of 1976 – “cash equivalent”, § 63(2) the cost of the benefit is the amount of any expense incurred in or in connection with its provision, and includes a proper proportion of any expense relating partly to the budget and partly to other matters
(1)     61(1)(b) cash equivalent of benefit (= tuition) à
(2)     63(b) cost of benefit (= average) à
(3)     63(2) expense to employer incurred (= marginal cost)
(a)     Actual?
(b)    Proportional?
c)       Just how do we ascertain true meaning?
(1)     Primary v. secondary meaning
d)      Intent?
(1)     Precedent-based argument
(2)     Reasonable expectations
(3)     Cost benefit
(4)     Efficiency
(5)     Presumptions
(6)     Fairness

No comments:

Post a Comment

The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...