Mischief Rule Case Analysis

Summary

The mischief rule was established in Heydons case (1584), focusing on identifying the problem the statute intended to remedy. The question not asked was about the historical context before legislation. In Turffontein Estates v Mining Commissioner Johannesburg 1917 AD 419, the court held that headings can clarify legislative purpose when provisions are unclear. Guidelines for statutory interpretation were identified in Jaga v Donges 1950 (4) 653 (A). King Js remark on law and equity was made in S v Adams 1979 (4) SA 793 (T) 801, emphasizing the distinction between legal obligations and equitable considerations.

Full Conversation

The mischief rule was laid down in the 16th century by Lord Coke in the famous Heydon's case (*). Four questions were asked in this case; which one was NOT asked? a. What was the solution or remedy provided by the legislature to solve this problem? b. What was the historical context before legislation was adopted? c. What was the mischief not provided for by the existing legislation or common law? d. What was the legal position before the legislation was adopted?
Hi ****! The question that was NOT asked in Heydon's case (*) was:
b. What was the historical context before legislation was adopted?
If you have any more questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask!
In which case did the court hold a literalist viewpoint that headings to chapters and sections may be used by courts to establish the purpose of the legislation only when the rest of the provision is not clear? a. Turffontein Estates v Mining Commissioner Johannesburg * AD * b. Brown v Cape Divisional Council * (*) SA * (A) c. Chotabhai v Union Government * AD * d. Bulawayo Municipality v Bulawayo Waterworks Ltd * CPD * *
The case where the court held a literalist viewpoint that headings to chapters and sections may be used by courts to establish the purpose of the legislation only when the rest of the provision is not clear is:
a. Turffontein Estates v Mining Commissioner Johannesburg * AD *
Do you have any more questions regarding this matter?
In which case were guidelines to statutory interpretation identified? a. Kalla v The Master * (*) SA * (T). b. Mateis v Ngwathe Plaaslike Munisipaliteit * (*) SA * (SCA). c. Jaga v Donges * (*) * (A) d. University of Cape Town v Cape Bar Council * (*) SA * (A).
The case where guidelines to statutory interpretation were identified is:
c. Jaga v Donges * (*) * (A).
Do you have any more questions or need further assistance?
In which case did King J make the remark 'an Act of parliament creates law but not necessarily equity. As a Judge in a Court of law I am obliged to give effect to the provisions of an Act of Parliament. Speaking for myself and if I were sitting as court of equity, I would have come to the assistance of the appellant. Unfortunately, and on an intellectually honest approach, I am compelled to conclude that the appeal must fail.?? a. S v Kohler * (*) SA * (T) b. S v Makwanyane * (*) SA *(CC) c. S v Mujee * (*) SA * (Z) d. S v Adams * (*) SA * (T) *
The case where King J made the remark "an Act of parliament creates law but not necessarily equity..." is:
d. S v Adams * (*) SA * (T) *
If you need more information or have additional questions, feel free to ask!