Hi there, I'm a bit confused between the Mischief Rule and the Purposive Approach. In one of your lectures, 'Gardiner v Sevenoaks' was used to explain the Mischief Rule, but Kaplan places the same case under the Purposive Approach. Could you please explain which aspect of this case makes it an example of the Mischief Rule and which aspect makes it an example of the Purposive Approach? A different example for each, or a simple key identifier to distinguish them in the exam, would also be really helpful.
Ask the Tutor ACCA LW
Mischief Rule vs Purposive Approach
19d ago#1That's a fair question! The Gardiner case can be used to illustrate both the Mischief Rule AND the Purposive approach.
The Mischief Rule is applied by the Courts to determine what is / was the specific mischief or wrong that was being addressed by the statute whereas ....
.... the Purposive approach takes a more generalised (less specific) approach to determine an area of law that was in need of being addressed (the purpose of the legislation)
An alternative to Gardiner that illustrates the Mischief Rule would be Corkery v Carpenter (drunk in charge of a bicycle)
Is that OK?
Sign into reply to this topic.