statutory Interpretaion rules of language

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: rianna
  • Created on: 31-12-12 11:06
View mindmap
  • Statutory Interpretation rules of language
    • The general rule
      • The general words that follow a category must be interpreted as being same type/class
      • applies if parliament has created list of two or more things within an act
      • Powell V Kempton park race course offence to place bets in a house or building or other such place D took bets from an open air stand , NG as stand was not the same type of thing
      • Brownsea new haven v poole corporation, held power to divert traffic from main street during a festival/ rejoicing or other such time, used power to divert traffic due to congestion not the same type of thing
      • Allen V emmerson theaters and other such places of amusement, decided funfair was the same as other places of amusement
    • The specific rule
      • The express mention of one thing excludes another
      • Applies if parliament has created a list of usually two or more things within an act thereby a category, absence of general words means only those stated are covered by the act
      • Tempest V kilner Statute stated sale of goods, wares & merchandise of more than £10 be put in writing Decided stocks and shares not withing the category
    • The context rule
      • The meaning of a word must be derived and interpreted from the words around it
      • IRC V Frere stated rules for interest, annuities and other annual interest.  courts could take word interest to mean daily monthly or yearly rest of the line clearly indicates it means yearly
      • Bromley V GLC, low far scheme which meant they would loose money by running the transport service. Another section of the act defined economic as try to keep any losses to a minimum, therefore scheme deliberately breaking act
      • Muir V Keay, all houses kept open for public refreshment resort and entertainment during the night need a license. D claimed did not provide entertainment,in context of the rest of the act decided could mean consumption of food and drink therefore Guilty
    • The omission rule
      • Where it appears some words are omitted from the act
      • May be because parliament have accidently missed out words. Debatable  whether courts can close gap by putting in words
      • Lord Denning in favour as he said should fill in the gaps and make sense of enactment
      • Lord Simonds- Against, said it is for parliament to rectify by passing an amendment atc


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Statutory interpretation resources »