Courtney Lowes
Unit 23
M3
The Sunbed Act 2010
Rules adopted Outcome
The literal rule is when the word that is in If the literal rule was to be applied then it
dispute within a case is given the meaning would hold Jay liable for hiring out the sun
that it has in the dictionary. It states that bed that he owned to someone body else on
‘no sun bed to which the business relates is their premises. An example of when this rule
used on domestic premises by a person has been applied before would be LNER v
aged fewer than 18’. Jay hires out the sun Berriman when a man died carrying out a
bed to Mr and Mrs Jones, who then let their routine check on the railway. His wife was
grandchild who is aged 15 to use the sun not entitled to compensation for what had
bed on the premises. happened as it was only a routine check.
The mischief rule lets the judges have more If they applied the mischief rule then it
discretion than the literal rule. This is when would mean that Jay would be liable as the
the court would look to see what the law sun bed was used by a person under the 18
was like before the act had been passed which is not allowed. However due to the
and then would try to find a gap. The sun bed being rented out and not on his
mischief rule can be applied in this case premises it might mean that he would not be
under section ‘no sun bed to which the held accountable as he rented it to someone
business relates is used on domestic over the age of 18 who then allowed
premises by a person aged fewer than 18’. someone at the age of 15 to use it.
A case when the mischief rule had been
applied was Smith v Hughes. Women were
sitting on their balconies and attracting the
attention of men who were walking past.
The act states that ‘It shall be an offence for
a common prostitute to loiter of solicits in a
street of public place for the purpose of
prostitution’.
The purpose approach is where the court If this approach was applied then it would
looks for the gap in the old law and then mean that Jay would not be liable for what
helps the judges to decide what they had happened as he had rented out the sun
believe parliament meant to achieve by bed to people who were over the age of 18
legislating the law. and he had clearly stated that anybody
under the age of 18 would not be allowed to
use the sun bed, this means that Mr and Mrs
Jones would be held liable as the sun bed
was used on their premises and they allowed
someone under the age of 18 to use it.
An example of when this approach has been
used is Coltman v Bibby, the court had to
decide if a ship would be classed as
equipment under the Employer liability act.
Unit 23
M3
The Sunbed Act 2010
Rules adopted Outcome
The literal rule is when the word that is in If the literal rule was to be applied then it
dispute within a case is given the meaning would hold Jay liable for hiring out the sun
that it has in the dictionary. It states that bed that he owned to someone body else on
‘no sun bed to which the business relates is their premises. An example of when this rule
used on domestic premises by a person has been applied before would be LNER v
aged fewer than 18’. Jay hires out the sun Berriman when a man died carrying out a
bed to Mr and Mrs Jones, who then let their routine check on the railway. His wife was
grandchild who is aged 15 to use the sun not entitled to compensation for what had
bed on the premises. happened as it was only a routine check.
The mischief rule lets the judges have more If they applied the mischief rule then it
discretion than the literal rule. This is when would mean that Jay would be liable as the
the court would look to see what the law sun bed was used by a person under the 18
was like before the act had been passed which is not allowed. However due to the
and then would try to find a gap. The sun bed being rented out and not on his
mischief rule can be applied in this case premises it might mean that he would not be
under section ‘no sun bed to which the held accountable as he rented it to someone
business relates is used on domestic over the age of 18 who then allowed
premises by a person aged fewer than 18’. someone at the age of 15 to use it.
A case when the mischief rule had been
applied was Smith v Hughes. Women were
sitting on their balconies and attracting the
attention of men who were walking past.
The act states that ‘It shall be an offence for
a common prostitute to loiter of solicits in a
street of public place for the purpose of
prostitution’.
The purpose approach is where the court If this approach was applied then it would
looks for the gap in the old law and then mean that Jay would not be liable for what
helps the judges to decide what they had happened as he had rented out the sun
believe parliament meant to achieve by bed to people who were over the age of 18
legislating the law. and he had clearly stated that anybody
under the age of 18 would not be allowed to
use the sun bed, this means that Mr and Mrs
Jones would be held liable as the sun bed
was used on their premises and they allowed
someone under the age of 18 to use it.
An example of when this approach has been
used is Coltman v Bibby, the court had to
decide if a ship would be classed as
equipment under the Employer liability act.
