Grey v. Pearson
Rule established
Origin of the Golden Rule. Lord Wensleydale's formulation: ordinary meaning prevails unless it leads to absurdity, repugnance, or inconsistency, in which case the grammatical meaning may be modified to avoid such result.
Facts
- Dispute over interpretation of a testamentary instrument (will)
- Question of whether certain words should be given their strict grammatical meaning or modified to avoid an inconsistency with the testator's apparent intention
Issue
- When may a court depart from the ordinary grammatical meaning of statutory or testamentary words?
Held
- "The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to"
- "Unless that would lead to some absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument"
- "In which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency, but no further"
Ratio Decidendi
The ordinary meaning of words must be followed unless it produces absurdity, repugnance, or inconsistency, in which case the meaning may be modified only so far as necessary to avoid that result.
How to use it in an exam
- The origin case for the Golden Rule (Lord Wensleydale's formulation)
- Cite for the definition/statement of the rule before applying it through R v. Allen, Re Sigsworth, or Adler
- Key line: "Lord Wensleydale in Grey v. Pearson (1857) stated: 'The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity or repugnance, in which case it may be modified so as to avoid that absurdity, but no further.'"
Source
Source: (1857) 6 HLC 61; standard textbook authority
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.