PART A
Weasley v. Dursley and Another [2004] UKHL
1. What were the material facts of the case?
In this case, the material facts conclude of that the appellant suffered personal injuries due to a collision whilst driving his car with a horse. The defendant, the owners of the horse, had not fenced the field in which the horse was kept properly.
The appellant was claiming for strict liability under Section 2 of the Civil Liability for Animals Act 1975. A horse is not a dangerous animal, as found in Section 6(2) of the Act, however Section 2(2) looks at the exceptions otherwise provided by this act of an animal not belonging to a dangerous species.
2. What was (or were) the legal issue(s) in the case?
In terms of the legal issue in this appeal, it is to look at the degree of strict liability for damage imposed by the Civil Liability for Animals Act 1975, on the owners or keepers of animals which do not belong to a dangerous species. This issue relates favourably to Section 2(2)(b), and to a lesser extent of Section 2(2)(a) of the Act. The concern is to decide whether or not the person who chooses to keep an animal whom may be dangerous in some circumstances is liable for any damage caused by that animal, or whether risks should be taken in regards to the ordinary characteristics of animals.
3. Which technique(s) of statutory interpretation do you consider that Lord Nicholls employed in the case? Give reasons for your answer.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead referred to the Mischief rule. He used it to refer back to the common law and the mischief the legislation was designed to cure. Therefore, he made consideration to the ‘common law’ prior to relevant legislation of the Civil Liability for Animals Act 1975, in both paragraph 8 and 36.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead uses the general purposive rule when he considers the purpose of the current legislation. An example of this is paragraph 9, in which illustrates that “the purpose of the 1975 Act was to simplify the law”, in which provisions of strict liability replace the old rules of the common law and looks into the liability of damage caused by dangerous animals. Whereas, paragraph 32 looks at the purpose of Section 2(2)(b); in which is to limit strict liability circumstances.
The main difference between these two approaches above, the Mischief rule and the general purposive rule, is that the mischief rules looks at the problem that the Act was trying to solve, whereas the purposive rule looks at the overall purpose of the law.
– Literal Rule (Normal natural meaning of a word as we would understand it in ordinary language) – Para 30- the Filch Interpretation- the words mean what they say
– Golden Rule (the rule states that the literal rule should be followed except on those occasions when to apply the literal rule would lead to absurd results or go against public policy)
MAKE A CLEAR REFERENCE BETWEEN THE DIFFERENCES OF THE MISCHIEF AND GENERAL PURPOSIVE RULE
4. To what aids to statutory interpretation did Lord Nicholls refer to? Your answer must indicate whether such aids are ‘intrinsic’ or ‘extrinsic’.
Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead refers to both intrinsic and extrinsic aids throughout. Intrinsic aids are found within the particular legislation to assist the court with interpretations, in which can be found within the Civil Liability for Animals Act 1975. In regards to the intrinsic aids, Section 6(2) from within the 1975 Act is found in [Paragraph 11], in which identifies which species of animal are regarded as dangerous via two requirements. The short title of “Weasley v Dursley and Another [2004] UKHL” is held at the top of the case, in which is also an intrinsic aid and gives a way in which the case can be cited. There is also a preamble of the Legislation used within the case, in which the subsection found above [Paragraph 8] named “Civil Liability for Animals Act 1975”, provides an introduction and interpretation of the legislation.
Extrinsic aids are found outside of a particular piece of legislation, in which assist in aiding interpretations. Lord Nicholls uses the extrinsic aids of legislation and case law. The legislation used are as follows, Paragraphs 18(ii) and 91(iv) of the Law Commission’s Report [Paragraph 45], and the Law Commission on Civil Liability for Animals (Law Com No 13) [Paragraph 30]. The case law used within the case are as follows, Fitzgerald v E D and A D Cooke Bourne (Farms) Ltd [1964], Filch v Filch [1977], Flitwick v Sprout (unreported)…; Transcript No 1937, Pomfrey v Hufflepuff [1990], Carrow v Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police [2000] and Burbage v Lucille Ltd (1907).
5. Explain, in your own words, the ratio decidendi of Weasley v Dursley and Another [2004]
In the case of Weasley v. Dursley and Another [2004], the appeal was dismissed. Two possible interpretations of the 1975 Act were identified, the Filch interpretation and the Flitwick interpretation. The Filch interpretation was preferential by Lord Nicholls, as identified in paragraph 47, which gave the reasoning of the animals behaviour, as to how they would as a species react in particular circumstances, like in the case of Weasley v. Dursley as being ‘terrified’. The ratio decidendi also relied on the previous decision of the Court of Appeal, in which it is not down to the animals physical characteristics, but the panic in which caused them to act in a way relating to an external event. It therefore becomes clear that Weasley did not establish a general right to compensation from the horse’s owner, Dursley, however the second limb of the Civil Liability for Animals Act 1975 was recognised; concealing the “temporary characteristics which appear only in identifiable circumstances”.