- Cited — Indran Murugason, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2023-11-16
“…ple of “immense prolixity in drafting” which is to be discouraged for the reasons identified by Lord Bingham in R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13 at paragraph 8.…”
- Cited — Anne Dumbreck Robins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 2023-07-28
“…thoritative statements as to the correct approach to construing legislation of which we were shown a selection: R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13, [2003] 2 AC 687 at [8] per Lord Bingham (“Undue concentration on the minutiae of the enactment may lead the Court to neglect the purpose which Parliament inte…”
- Explained — The Reverend Paul Williamson v The Bishop of London & Ors 2023-04-05
“…As Lord Bingham explained in R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13; [2003] 2 AC 687 at paragraph 8:…”
- Cited — Lee Hudson v Jayne Hathway 2022-12-14
“…opments which the legislators might not have foreseen, if they conform to the policy of the Act in question. In R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13, [2003] 2 AC 687 Lord Steyn said at [25]:…”
- Explained — Christian Peter Candy v The Commissioners for HMRC 2022-11-03
“…d give effect to the meaning of the words used by Parliament. This was explained by Lord Bingham of Cornhill in R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13, [2003] 2 AC 687 at [8]:…”
- Cited — Alexander Gorbachev v Andrey Grigoryevich Guriev 2022-09-30
“… to give effect to the purpose of the legislation, which must be derived from its language and context. Thus in R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13, [2003] 2 AC 687 Lord Bingham said at [8] that:…”
- Cited — Her Majesty's Customs And Excise v Devon Waste Management Ltd & Ors 2021-04-22
“… in the context of the statute as a whole. That much should be uncontroversial: see Lord Bingham of Cornhill in R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13, [2003] 2 AC 687 at [8] cited recently in the context of a taxing statute in HMRC v News Corp UK and another [2021] EWCA Civ 91, [55]. A party does not need to…”
- Cited — Privacy International & Ors v Secretary of State for Foreign And Commonwealth Affairs & Ors 2021-03-09
“…, the court’s task is, within the permissible bounds of interpretation, to give effect to Parliament’s purpose: R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13, [2003] 2 AC 687, at paragraph 8 of the opinion of Lord Bingham. That we have sought to do.…”
- Explained — Revenue and Customs v News Corp UK & Ireland Ltd 2021-01-28
“…ertain and give effect to the meaning of the words used by Parliament. As Lord Bingham of Cornhill explained in R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13, [2003] 2 AC 687 at paragraph 8:…”
- Cited — Revenue and Customs v News Corp UK & Ireland Ltd 2021-01-28
“…[2003] UKHL 13…”
- Cited — McConnell & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Registrar General for England and Wales 2020-04-29
“…are “always speaking”: see Owens v Owens [2018] UKSC 41; [2018] 3 WLR 834, at para. 30 (Lord Wilson JSC), citing R(Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13; [2003] 2 AC 387, at para. 9 (Lord Bingham of Cornhill).…”
- Cited — CXF, R (On the Application Of) v Central Bedfordshire Council NHS North Norfolk Clinical Commissioning Group 2018-12-20
“… for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex parte Spath Holme Ltd [2001] 2 AC 349, 397 (Lord Nicholls); R v (Quintavalle) Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13; [2003] 2 AC 687, paras 8 (Lord Bingham) and 21 (Lord Steyn). The governing principle was succinctly stated by Toulson LJ in An Informer v A Chief Constable [2…”
- Doubted — Davis v Watford Borough Council 2018-03-21
“…For his part, Mr Paget referred us to the decision of the House of Lords in R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health [2003] UKHL 13, [2003] 2 AC 687 and in particular to the observation of Lord Steyn at paragraph 21 that “nowadays the shift towards purposive interpretation is not in doubt.”…”