[28/05, 19:19] +265 991 25 03 19: *FRAMEWORK OF A JUDICIAL DECISION*

When analyzing a legal case, a structured understanding begins with the *facts.* These are the
material and procedural circumstances surrounding the case that led to the dispute.

Material facts are those that directly influence the legal outcome, while procedural facts concern
the journey of the case through the legal system. For instance, in *Donoghue v Stevenson [1932]
AC 562,* the facts involved Mrs. Donoghue consuming ginger beer purchased by a friend, only to
discover a decomposed snail in the bottle, which caused her physical harm. These facts set the
stage for a legal analysis concerning duty of care in negligence.

The *issues* in a case are the central legal questions the court is called upon to answer. These
are usually framed as questions beginning with “whether,” and they guide the court’s reasoning. In
*Donoghue v Stevenson,* the key issue was *whether a manufacturer owes a duty of care to a
consumer who did not directly purchase the product*. Identifying the legal issues helps to narrow
down the scope of legal debate and determine which legal principles apply.

The *ratio decidendi* is the court’s reasoning for its decision — the legal principle that forms the
binding precedent. It is derived from the judgment and is based on the facts and legal arguments
presented. In *Donoghue v Stevenson* the House of Lords held that a manufacturer owes a duty
of care to the ultimate consumer if it is reasonably foreseeable that negligence would cause harm.
Lord Atkin articulated the “neighbour principle,” stating that one must take reasonable care to
avoid acts or omissions which could foreseeably injure one's “neighbour,” meaning persons who
are so closely and directly affected by one’s actions that one ought to have them in contemplation.
This ratio established a foundational principle of negligence law in common law jurisdictions.

The law applied in a case refers to the *legal rules, doctrines, or statutes that the court uses to
resolve the dispute*

In *Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. [1893] 1 QB 256,* the court applied principles of contract law,
including offer and acceptance, intention to create legal relations, and consideration. The company
had advertised a reward for anyone who used their product and still contracted influenza. The
court held this constituted a unilateral offer, which was accepted by performance when Mrs. Carlill
used the product as directed and still became ill. The court emphasized that a clear offer backed
by an intention to be legally bound — evidenced by the deposit of money in a bank — was
sufficient to form a binding contract.

*Obiter dicta*, on the other hand, are remarks made by judges that are not essential to the
decision and therefore do not have binding authority. However, they may be persuasive in later
cases. These statements often explore hypothetical scenarios or broader legal theories. For
example, in *R v Brown [1993] 2 All ER 75*, the House of Lords dealt with consensual
sadomasochistic acts. The majority found the acts unlawful but also discussed — in obiter — how
public policy might limit individual consent in criminal law. Similarly, in *Donoghue v Stevenson*,
Lord Atkin made broader remarks about moral duties and the social function of law, which were
not essential to the ruling but have since influenced legal thinking.

Together, these components — facts, issues, ratio decidendi, law applied, and obiter dicta — form
the framework of a judicial decision and help scholars, students, and practitioners understand how
the court arrived at its decision. Each element plays a role in the development of legal reasoning
and precedent.
[28/05, 19:50] +265 991 25 03 19: *STATUTORY INTERPRETATION*

Statutory interpretation refers to the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation.
Judges seek to determine the intention of Parliament when the wording of a statute is ambiguous
or unclear.

*1. Literal Rule*

The Literal Rule requires that statutes be interpreted using the ordinary and natural meaning of the
words, even if the result appears absurd or unjust.

It is the oldest rule of interpretation and is rooted in the principle of *Parliamentary Supremacy*
Courts must not go beyond what Parliament has expressly stated.

*Illustration*
If a statute states *"no vehicles in the park,"* a literal interpretation would exclude all vehicles,
including ambulances and police cars.

*Cases*
*R v Judge of the City of London Court (1892)*
"If the words of an Act are clear, then you must follow them, even though they lead to a manifest
absurdity." – Lord Esher

*Whitely v Chappell (1868)*

A statute made it an offence to impersonate "any person entitled to vote."The defendant
impersonated a dead person. The court held he was not guilty because a dead person is not
"entitled to vote."

*Fisher v Bell (1961)*

A shopkeeper displayed a flick knife in a shop window. The statute made it an offence to "offer"
such knives for sale. The court held he was not guilty since, under contract law, displaying goods
is an "invitation to treat," not an "offer."

*2. Golden Rule*

The Golden Rule is a modification of the Literal Rule. It is applied when the literal interpretation of
words would result in an absurdity, inconsistency, or repugnance.The rule was developed to
prevent absurd results that Parliament could not have intended.

*Illustration*

If a law states "a man shall not marry his wife's sister," and the wife is dead, a literal reading would
prohibit marriage even after her death. The Golden Rule allows a more sensible interpretation.

*Cases*

*R v Allen (1872)*

A law stated it was an offence to "marry" while already married. Under a literal interpretation, the
second marriage is void, so technically no offence occurred.

Using the Golden Rule, the court interpreted "marry" as going through a marriage ceremony,
ensuring the law’s purpose was upheld.

*3. Mischief Rule*

The Mischief Rule focuses on the "mischief" the statute was intended to remedy. The court looks
at what the law was before the statute, what defect the law was addressing, and interprets it to
suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.
Established in *Heydon’s Case (1584)*, it is more purposive and flexible, allowing judges to
consider the intention of Parliament.

*Illustration*

If a statute is enacted to stop tax evasion by online platforms, and a company avoids taxes
through a loophole, the mischief rule allows interpretation to close that loophole.

*Cases*
Heydon’s Case (1584)
Set out the four criteria:

What was the common law before the Act?

What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?

What remedy Parliament hath resolved and appointed?

What is the true reason of the remedy?

*Smith v Hughes (1960)*

Prostitutes were soliciting from windows and balconies. The Street Offences Act 1959 made it
illegal to solicit in public. The court held the purpose was to prevent harassment to people in the
street, so the mischief rule was used to convict them.

*Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling (2000)*

A taxi driver was waiting for customers on private land near a taxi rank without a license. Though
not literally "on the street," the court held he was caught by the mischief rule, as he was soliciting
customers on the street.

*Conclusion*
These rules offer judges a toolkit to interpret legislation when meaning is unclear or when a literal
reading leads to unjust outcomes. While the Literal Rule respects the supremacy of Parliament,
the Golden and Mischief Rules prioritize common sense and legislative intent, respectively.