Strict constructionPenal statutesCourt of Appeal (England)

Tuck & Sons v Priester

(1887) 19 Queen's Bench Division 62918871 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The plaintiffs owned a picture and engaged the defendant to reproduce copies of it for them. The defendant made further copies beyond the order and sold them in England.
Issue
Did the penalty under S.6 of the 1862 Act apply to copies made and sold before the copyright was registered?
Held
The plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction and damages for breach of contract.
Principle
Penal provisions are construed strictly: if there is a reasonable interpretation of a penal section which will avoid the penalty in a particular case, the court must adopt it.
Cite this

Facts

  • The plaintiffs owned a picture and engaged the defendant to reproduce copies of it for them.
  • The defendant made further copies beyond the order and sold them in England.
  • The plaintiffs registered the copyright only after these acts and then claimed, among other relief, the penalty under S.6 of the Fine Arts Copyright Act 1862 (forfeiture of a sum for each copy).

Issue

  1. Did the penalty under S.6 of the 1862 Act apply to copies made and sold before the copyright was registered?

Held

  • The plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction and damages for breach of contract.
  • Lord Esher MR: "If there is a reasonable interpretation which will avoid the penalty in any particular case, we must adopt that construction. If there are two reasonable constructions, we must give the more lenient one."
  • Read strictly, the penal section did not apply to acts done before registration, so the penalty was not recoverable. (The judges differed on the copyright points; the strict-construction statement is the part cited in Interpretation of Statutes.)

Ratio decidendi

Where a penal provision is reasonably capable of two meanings, the court adopts the one that avoids the penalty.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • Cite for strict construction of penal statutes (benefit of the doubt to the person against whom the penalty is claimed).
  • Do not cite it for noscitur a sociis; it is not a noscitur case.
  • Key line: "In Tuck & Sons v. Priester (1887), Lord Esher MR said that if there is a reasonable interpretation which will avoid the penalty, the court must adopt it."

Cite this

Citation

Tuck & Sons v. Priester (1887) 19 Queen's Bench Division 629

Reported: Partly verified (26 Oct 2026): English case, not on Indian Kanoon or sci.gov.in; checked against secondary web sources. Facts and holding from secondary reports (incl. Harvard Law Review vol. 4); Lord Esher MR quote is the standard textbook rendering.. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.