Statutory interpretation

Literal Rule

Words or phrases in an act are given their ordinary, natural or dictionary meaning. The literal rule does not allow a judge to create law, it requires application of the law as stated by parliament (Fisher v Bell 1961 sale of knives on display)

1 of 7

Golden Rule (Narrow)

If there are multiple literal meanings narrow application allows the judge to select a meaning that avoids an absurd result (Allen 1872 'valid marriage')

2 of 7

Golden Rule (Broad)

Where there is only one literal meaning to a word or phrase then the judge will modify the meaning to avoid an absurd result (Adler v George 1964 Vicinity)

3 of 7

Mischief Rule

Looks at the gap in the law that the legislation intended to fill by passing the act, the court then interprets the act to fill the gap and remedy the 'mischief' (smith v hughes 1960)

4 of 7

Purposive Approach

Focuses on what parliament intended when passing new law, it is a modern version of the mischief approach (pepper v hart)

5 of 7

Intrinsic Aids

Aids found within the act itself, the judge may use parts of the act to understand the word of phrase in question, this includes using the preamble (statement setting out the purpose of the act) modern acts contain definitions

6 of 7

Extrinsic Aids

Materials found outside the act that may be referred to the judge, these can be dictionaries or since 1999 the notes issued with an act (example is vaughan v vaughan)

7 of 7

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

If there are multiple literal meanings narrow application allows the judge to select a meaning that avoids an absurd result (Allen 1872 'valid marriage')

Back

Golden Rule (Narrow)

Card 3

Front

Where there is only one literal meaning to a word or phrase then the judge will modify the meaning to avoid an absurd result (Adler v George 1964 Vicinity)

Back

Card 4

Front

Looks at the gap in the law that the legislation intended to fill by passing the act, the court then interprets the act to fill the gap and remedy the 'mischief' (smith v hughes 1960)

Back

Card 5

Front

Focuses on what parliament intended when passing new law, it is a modern version of the mischief approach (pepper v hart)

Back

View more cards

Get Revising

Statutory interpretation