Definition
The Statute of Gloucester is an English statute enacted in 1278 during the reign of Edward I (6 Edw. I, c. 1), named for Gloucester, the town where Parliament sat when it was passed. It holds a foundational place in legal history as the first statute to authorize the recovery of costs by a prevailing party in civil litigation. Before its enactment, a successful plaintiff could obtain judgment on the underlying claim but had no statutory right to recover the expenses of bringing the action. The Statute of Gloucester changed that, making costs available as a matter of law incident to the judgment.
The statute also had procedural significance beyond costs: it confirmed and extended the writ of waste, enabling a reversioner or remainderman to bring an action for damages against a tenant who committed waste on the property, where previously the remedy was limited to forfeiture of the estate.
---
HISTORICAL EVOLUTION NOTE
This term follows the historical evolution pattern. The Statute of Gloucester is not a living statute — it is a fixed historical document — but its downstream effects shaped centuries of Anglo-American procedural and property law. Understanding it requires tracking what it established, what it was later superseded by, and how its principles survived the ocean crossing into American law.
---
Why It Matters in Research
For researchers working in the Law Mind corpus, the Statute of Gloucester appears in two distinct research contexts that should not be conflated.
First, costs doctrine. The statute is the doctrinal origin point for the "English rule" on attorney's fees and costs — the principle that the loser pays. American courts largely departed from this rule in favor of the "American rule" (each party bears its own costs absent a statute or contract), but the divergence itself is a subject of ongoing scholarly and judicial discussion. When tracing the history of fee-shifting provisions, costs awards, or the American rule, sources will frequently invoke the Statute of Gloucester as the baseline from which American practice deviated. Researchers should be alert to the fact that modern U.S. statutes authorizing costs or fee-shifting are sometimes described as restoring or approximating the Gloucester principle — this framing appears in both judicial opinions and secondary literature and can be misleading if taken literally.
Second, waste doctrine. The statute's extension of the writ of waste has lasting relevance in property law, particularly in landlord-tenant and future interests contexts. Historical property treatises discuss the Statute of Gloucester alongside the earlier Statute of Marlbridge (1267) as the paired foundations of English waste law. Researchers working on permissive versus voluntary waste, or on the remedies available to reversioners, will encounter both statutes in close proximity in historical sources.
A navigational trap: sources written before the twentieth century often cite the statute by its regnal year (6 Edw. I) rather than by name. Black's cites Blackstone's Commentaries (3 Bl. Comm. 399) as the standard reference. That Blackstone passage remains the most accessible secondary gloss on the statute's original scope and is worth consulting directly when period sources are ambiguous about which statute is being invoked.
The costs dimension also connects to the limitations context flagged in the encyclopedia cross-reference: statutes of repose and limitation are, like the Statute of Gloucester, historical English statutes that were selectively adopted, modified, or rejected as American jurisdictions developed their own procedural frameworks. Researchers studying any of these transplanted English procedural statutes should approach them with the same historicizing care.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
Black's Law Dictionary identifies the Statute of Gloucester concisely: a 1278 English statute, the first to give costs in actions, with the Blackstone citation as its supporting authority. The entry is accurate but minimal. It correctly notes the costs innovation as the statute's defining contribution but does not address the waste provisions, which occupy a significant share of the statute's text and generated substantial English case law.
Historical legal dictionaries generally treat this statute as settled reference — a named milestone rather than a term requiring interpretive elaboration. That consensus is reliable. The statute's identity, date, and primary doctrinal contribution are not contested in the sources. What the historical dictionaries omit is the American reception story: how the costs principle was received, modified, or rejected colony by colony and state by state — a gap that secondary literature and state-level procedural history must fill.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The Statute of Gloucester operated as English law and has no direct force in any American jurisdiction. Its relevance in U.S. legal research is entirely as a historical reference point. Some states, in their early reception statutes, explicitly adopted English statutes in force as of a given date, and questions occasionally arose whether the Statute of Gloucester was among those received. Generally, American courts developed costs rules through separate statutory enactment rather than through direct reception of the 1278 statute.
---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
civpro_133: Statutes of Repose vs. Statutes of Limitation — for the broader framework of how English procedural statutes were transplanted, adapted, and diverged from in American civil procedure.
---