[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
16 views2 pages

AS Law (9084) - Statutory Interpretation Summary: 4.2 Rules of Language

The document outlines key rules of statutory interpretation, including Ejusdem Generis, Expressio Unius, and Noscitur a Sociis, along with their definitions and relevant case law. It also discusses intrinsic and extrinsic aids, such as Hansard and reports from law reform bodies, which help clarify legislative intent. Additionally, the impact of EU law and the Human Rights Act 1998 on interpretation methods is highlighted, along with the advantages and disadvantages of different interpretation rules.

Uploaded by

rohindh905
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
16 views2 pages

AS Law (9084) - Statutory Interpretation Summary: 4.2 Rules of Language

The document outlines key rules of statutory interpretation, including Ejusdem Generis, Expressio Unius, and Noscitur a Sociis, along with their definitions and relevant case law. It also discusses intrinsic and extrinsic aids, such as Hansard and reports from law reform bodies, which help clarify legislative intent. Additionally, the impact of EU law and the Human Rights Act 1998 on interpretation methods is highlighted, along with the advantages and disadvantages of different interpretation rules.

Uploaded by

rohindh905
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

AS Law (9084) - Statutory Interpretation Summary

4.2 Rules of Language


- Judges developed rules to clarify unclear language in statutes.

4.2.1 Ejusdem Generis Rule


- Definition: General words after specific ones are interpreted to be of the same kind.
- Requirement: At least two specific words must appear before the general ones.
- Hobbs v CG Robertson Ltd (1970): Brick not same as 'stone, concrete, slag' Claim failed.
- Allen v Emmerson (1944): Only one word 'theatres' Fairground included.
- Flack v Baldry (1988): Electric stun gun included Ejusdem generis.

4.2.2 Expressio Unius Exclusio Alterius


- Definition: Mentioning one thing excludes others.
- Tempest v Kilner (1846): 'Goods, wares and merchandise' No mention of shares Excluded.

4.2.3 Noscitur a Sociis


- Definition: A word is known by the company it keeps.
- Inland Revenue v Frere (1965): 'Interest' meant annual due to nearby words.
- R v Inhabitants of Sedgley (1831): Applied only to coal mines, not others.

4.3 Intrinsic Aids


- Found within the statute: titles, preambles, headings, schedules.
- Marginal notes not binding.
- Arbitration Act 1996: Interpretative section helps clarify purpose.

4.4 Extrinsic Aids


- Outside the Act: previous Acts, case law, dictionaries, historical context.
- Judges may now refer to Hansard, Law Reform Reports, and International Treaties.

4.4.1 Hansard
- Official record of Parliamentary debates.
- Allowed after Pepper v Hart (1993) if:
Act is ambiguous/obscure/absurd.
Statement by minister/promoter.
Statement is clear.
- Pepper v Hart (1993): Used to define 'cash equivalent'.

4.4.2 Reports of Law Reform Bodies


- Clarify Parliaments intent.
- Black Clawson Case (1975): Law Commission report used to interpret Act.
AS Law (9084) - Statutory Interpretation Summary
4.4.3 International Conventions
- Used to interpret Acts based on treaties.
- Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd (1980): Used treatys original intent.
- Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (2009): Balloon treated as aircraft.

4.5 Impact of EU Law and HRA 1998


- 4.5.1: EU Law encouraged purposive approach.
- 4.5.2: HRA 1998 Section 3: Laws interpreted to comply with ECHR.
- A and others v Secretary of State (2004): Indefinite detention violated Articles 5 & 14.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Interpretation Rules


Literal Rule:
Respects Parliament, consistent
May cause unjust outcomes
Golden Rule:
Avoids absurdity, gives choice
Limited scope, unpredictable
Mischief Rule:
Reveals intention, fixes gaps
Judicial law-making risk
Purposive Approach:
Flexible, prevents absurdity
Uncertain, harder to find intent

Key Case Law Summary


- Literal Rule: Whiteley v Chappell (1868)
- Golden Rule: Adler v George (1964)
- Mischief Rule: Coates v CPS (2011)
- Ejusdem Generis: Hobbs v CG Robertson Ltd (1970)
- Expressio Unius: Tempest v Kilner (1846)
- Noscitur a Sociis: Inland Revenue v Frere (1965)
- Hansard: Pepper v Hart (1993)
- Law Reform Reports: Black Clawson Case (1975)
- HRA: A and Others v Secretary of State (2004)

You might also like