STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Statutory interpretation = methods ...
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Statutory interpretation = methods used by courts to determine the meaning of given words in legislation. The same process for statutory interpretation applies to statute and delegated legislation: AIA 1901 (Cth) s 46. Framework - Literal v Purposive approach - Flexibility in stat interpretation - Common law approach APPROACHES TO INTERPRETING STATUTES LITERAL APPROACH Strict approach: -
Courts apply the literal and plain meaning of the words in their ‘ordinary and natural sense’, even where it does not accord with the purpose underlying the legislation or leads to an unjust result. Courts would not consider alternative interpretations of words to determine if they were ambiguous
Engineers case; (Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship) (1920): Higgins J: “The fundamental rule of interpretation, to which all others are subordinate, is that a statute is to be expounded according to the intent of the Parliament that made it; and that intention has to be found by an examination of the language used in the statute as a whole. The question is, what does the language mean; and when we find what the language means, in its ordinary and natural sense, it is our duty to obey that meaning, even if we consider the result to be inconvenient or impolitic or improbable.” However: - Pearce and Geddes (Re Prince Blucher; Ex parte Debtor), p 27, ‘there can be no single, unambiguous or ordinary meaning’ to many of the words and phrases used in legislation. Disadvantage - Assumes that words and phrases can have only one clear meaning o Can lead to unjust results where words have multiple meanings Consequence of the literal approach: If the meaning of the words is clear and unambiguous, the courts are bound to apply the meaning regardless of the result: Re Prince Blucher; Ex parte Debtor [1931]
-
Applied the approach stated by the HCA in the Engineer’s Case (1920) 1612: o The question is, what does the language mean, and when we find what the language means, in its ordinary and natural sense, it is our duty to obey that meaning, even if we think the result to be convenient or impolitic or improbable.
Example of the literal approach Re Prince Blucher; Ex parte Debtor (1931) Lord Hansworth MR; - Have to determine whether or not the specific words ‘signed by him’ cover and authorise a signature by the debtor’s solicitor. Held: Courts have to consider the ‘explicit and very simple terms of the statute.’… There is no ground for altering the words of the statute or giving a judicial interpretation to it when it would amount to an amendment or alteration of the plain terms of the statute. ‘GOLDEN RULE’ Historically - Developed by the courts over time to give effect to the strict literal approach - Traditional limitation of the literal rule; Allows the literal rule to be overlooked in favour of upholding the purpose that parliament intends the law to have. Where application of the literal meaning causes an absurd result or a result that is inconsistent with the rest of the legislation, the court may attempt to resolve the absurdity: Lord Wensleydale, Grey v Pearson (1857). Main purpose of the rule is to correct errors in legislation rather than apply the purpose approach exclusively.
Courts apply the literal and plain meaning of the words in their ‘ordinary and natural sense’, even where it does not accord with the purpose underlying the legislation or leads to an unjust result. Courts would not consider alternative interpretations of words to determine if they were ambiguous
Engineers case; (Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship) (1920): Higgins J: “The fundamental rule of interpretation, to which all others are subordinate, is that a statute is to be expounded according to the intent of the Parliament that made it; and that intention has to be found by an examination of the language used in the statute as a whole. The question is, what does the language mean; and when we find what the language means, in its ordinary and natural sense, it is our duty to obey that meaning, even if we consider the result to be inconvenient or impolitic or improbable.” However: - Pearce and Geddes (Re Prince Blucher; Ex parte Debtor), p 27, ‘there can be no single, unambiguous or ordinary meaning’ to many of the words and phrases used in legislation. Disadvantage - Assumes that words and phrases can have only one clear meaning o Can lead to unjust results where words have multiple meanings Consequence of the literal approach: If the meaning of the words is clear and unambiguous, the courts are bound to apply the meaning regardless of the result: Re Prince Blucher; Ex parte Debtor [1931]
-
Applied the approach stated by the HCA in the Engineer’s Case (1920) 1612: o The question is, what does the language mean, and when we find what the language means, in its ordinary and natural sense, it is our duty to obey that meaning, even if we think the result to be convenient or impolitic or improbable.
Example of the literal approach Re Prince Blucher; Ex parte Debtor (1931) Lord Hansworth MR; - Have to determine whether or not the specific words ‘signed by him’ cover and authorise a signature by the debtor’s solicitor. Held: Courts have to consider the ‘explicit and very simple terms of the statute.’… There is no ground for altering the words of the statute or giving a judicial interpretation to it when it would amount to an amendment or alteration of the plain terms of the statute. ‘GOLDEN RULE’ Historically - Developed by the courts over time to give effect to the strict literal approach - Traditional limitation of the literal rule; Allows the literal rule to be overlooked in favour of upholding the purpose that parliament intends the law to have. Where application of the literal meaning causes an absurd result or a result that is inconsistent with the rest of the legislation, the court may attempt to resolve the absurdity: Lord Wensleydale, Grey v Pearson (1857). Main purpose of the rule is to correct errors in legislation rather than apply the purpose approach exclusively.
