Heydon’s Case [1584] EWHC Exch J36

A dispute over the validity of a lease made by a dissolved college. The Exchequer Court established the famous 'mischief rule' for statutory interpretation, requiring courts to consider the common law, the mischief Parliament sought to remedy, and the remedy provided, to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.

Facts

The case concerned an information of intrusion brought in the Exchequer against Heydon for intruding upon certain lands in Devon. The warden and canons of the college of Ottery had granted certain copyholds to Ware the father and Ware the son for their lives. Subsequently, in 1538, while these estates were still in existence, the warden and canons leased the same lands to Heydon for eighty years at the ancient and accustomed rents. The college was then surrendered to King Henry VIII.

The statute 31 Hen. 8 provided that leases made by religious and ecclesiastical houses would be void if made while any existing estate or interest for life or years remained in the land, unless the usual rents were reserved.

Issues

The central issue was whether a copyhold estate held for lives at the will of the lord according to the custom of the manor constituted an ‘estate and interest for lives’ within the meaning of the statute 31 Hen. 8, thereby rendering Heydon’s lease void.

Judgment

The Court unanimously resolved that Heydon’s lease was void. The Barons held that the copyhold estate was indeed an estate for life within the words and meaning of the Act.

The Mischief Rule

The Court established the foundational rule for statutory interpretation:

for the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law,) four things are to be discerned and considered: 1st. What was the common law before the making of the Act. 2nd. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide. 3rd. What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the commonwealth. And, 4th. The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of all the Judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief, and pro privato commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico.

Application to the Facts

The Court explained that before the statute, religious persons could make leases for as many years as they pleased. The mischief was that when they perceived their houses would be dissolved, they made long and unreasonable leases. The statute’s purpose was to avoid ‘doubling of estates’ which implied deceit and private interest contrary to Parliament’s intention.

Copyholds and Statutes

The Court established a rule regarding when statutes extend to copyholds: when an Act alters service, tenure, or interest in prejudice of the lord or custom, it shall not extend to copyholds; but when made for the good of the public without such prejudice, copyholds may be within the statute’s purview.

Implications

This case is of fundamental importance in English legal history as it established the ‘mischief rule’ of statutory interpretation, which remains influential today. The rule directs courts to look beyond literal wording to Parliament’s purpose in enacting legislation, considering what problem the law was designed to address and interpreting provisions purposively to advance the remedy Parliament intended. The case also clarified the relationship between general statutes and copyhold estates.

Verdict: Judgment was entered for the Queen. Heydon’s lease was declared void because the copyhold estate for two lives was held to be an estate for life within the meaning of the statute 31 Hen. 8, and permitting both the copyhold estate and the eighty-year lease to stand together would constitute an impermissible ‘doubling of estates’ contrary to Parliament’s intent.

Source: Heydon's Case [1584] EWHC Exch J36