Grey v Pearson -[1857] 6 HL Cas 61, (1857) 10 ER 1216
Citation:Grey v Pearson -[1857] 6 HL Cas 61 , (1857) 10 ER 1216.
Rule of thumb:When can secondary sources of law be submitted in Court proceedings? This case confirmed what has become known as the ‘golden rule ‘ of jurisprudence – if a primary source of law is clear on the law, then no secondary sources of law are relevant in determining the law.
Judgment:
Court held: If statute, regulation, case or contract (primary source) interpreted literally using the ordinary grammatical definition of the words provides a clear picture of the law/rule, then no secondary sources of law are to be considered in interpreting the law. If however, the primary source is not entirely clear, inconsistent, absurd or repugnant then secondary sources can be lodged to help interpret the primary source. This is often referred to as the golden rule of jurisprudence.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘[I]n construing wills, and indeed statutes and all written instruments, the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid that absurdity or inconsistency, but no further’, Lord Wensleydale
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.