Purposive Approach

• Goes beyond the mischief rule. It requires judges to NOT look for a gap or error instead they must identify Parliament's intentions. They must question what the purpose of the Act is. They should consider the context at the time it was created.

  
  

  The judge will look at the 'spirit of the law' rather than the 'letter of the law'. The judge will interpret the law in line with these intentions.
• Bulmer v Bollinger -

  Lord Denning said, "We must no longer look at the meaning of the Act, we must now look at the purpose or intent".
• Coltman -

  The courts decided to include the term 'ship' in the definition of 'equipment' to achieve Parliament's intention of making employers liable for injury or death of employees.
• R (Quintavalle) V SoS for health -

  The purposive approach was used to conclude that CNR embryos were to be treated the same way as natural embryos and the Act did apply to them as well.
• Advantage 1)

  Gives effect to Parliament's true intention

  
  

  Allows judges to investigate what Parliament intended when creating the law and ensure their decision achieves this purpose in the case before them. Other rules ignore Parliament's true intentions but the purposive rule avoids this.
• Advantage 2)

  Prevents absurd and unjust results

  
  

  This is because when using this rule judges change the law to avoid absurdities caused by other rules such as the literal rule. Thus the law is fair and promotes justice, unlike other rules.
• Advantage 3)

  Ensures that the law keeps up to date with modern society

  
  

  This is because judges look for its purpose in line with Parliament's intentions and adapt to modern situations e.g. technological changes. Therefore the law is flexible and adapts to changing times or modern technologies which will create justice for the parties involved.
• Advantage 4)

  More flexible than the mischief rule

  
  

  This is because when they are using the purposive approach they are required to identify a 'mischief' with the old common law that the Act was intended to remedy. They can use this approach to interpret any Act which gives them greater opportunity and flexibility to modify and update the law.
• Disadvantage 1)

  Doesn't provide certainty

  
  

  This is because judges will change the meanings or words or phrase in an Act to match Parliament's intentions. So the law is changed and may not be the same in similar cases. As a result lawyers and citizens will not know what the law is or be able to predict outcomes.
• Disadvantage 2)

  Doesn't respect Parliamentary Sovereignty

  
  

  This is because judges are not staying within their constitutional role of applying the law, they are creating legal rules which should be left to Parliament.
• Disadvantage 3)

  Relies heavily on the use of Extrinsic Aids

  
  

  It is often difficult to discover Parliament's true intention, judges rely on using extrinsic aids to try to discover what Parliament were thinking when making the law.
• Disadvantage 4)

  Used inconsistently across cases which can lead to unfairness

  
  

  Some judges will not opt to use this approach as they do not believe it is the constitutional role of a judge to change the law.