Statutory interpretation

The only statute that regulates the way that statutes are interpreted by the judiciary is the statutory interpretation act (1978) and it only gives general guidance

Statute - highest form of law manifestation

The following are rules for the making of decision in matter of doubt

  1. Literal rule

  2. Golden rule

  3. Mischief rule

  4. Ejusdem Generis rule

  5. Purposive approach


Literal rule

Give the words used the plain ordinary and grammatical meaning to each word without a statute literally

If the words are clear you must follow them even though they may lead to a manifest absurdity the court has nothing to do with the question as to whether the legislator has committed an absurdity

Only parliament make laws, and if they pass a law that leads to absurd outcomes, the judges cannot interfere

City of London court judge and Payne (1892) - lord esher:

“If the words of an act admit two interpretations and if one interpretation leads to an absurdity and the other does not the court will conclude the legislature did not intend the absurdity and adopt the other interpretation

Whitely v Chappell (1868)

London and North Eastern railway company v Berryman (1946)

It was held that a woman was not entitled to compensation for her husbands death because he had been performing maintenance on the railway track when he was killed but not relaying or repairing the tracks as the relevant act required

in class examples

if any tax payers are not completing their tax return, they would be subject to a fixed penalty plus “treble the tax which he ought be charged under the act”

if my rent is 100 and i pay 90, i have 10 left to pay so according to the law do I have to pay 300 (triple the original rent payment) or 30 (triple the remaining rent payment)

The weakness is that we assume everyone has the same literal understanding of words

R v Harris

A statute which made an offence for someone to cut stab or wound any person was held not to apply where the defendant bit off the end of the victims nose, the words indicated that for an offence to be committed, some form of instrument had to be used

Fisher v bell (1960)

The golden rule

Words must be given their plain and natural meaning unless it result in a manifest absurdity

Re v Sigworth

It was held that where a man murdered his mother with the intention of inheriting her estate would not do so as it was never the intention that parliament would intend a man to profit by murder

Beck v Smith

Lord Wensleydale said that the golden rule can conflict with the literal rule but where there is only one meaning the literal rule must apply

To be used if the literal rule fails



Mischief rule

This rule seeks to establish the mischief the act was created to remedy

Common law - decision made by judges, establishes a precedent

Smith v Hughes

R v Registrar General Ex Parte Smith

People who are adopted have the right to know who their biological mother is but a convicted murderer wanted to know his birth mother and he was refused due to the danger they had foreseen

Elliott v Grey

Cork v Carpenter

Someone in charge of a bicycle was drunk and it offence to br drunk whilst in charge of a carriage

However some could argue that a a bicycle is not a carriage but the mischief was aimed at drunks on the highway being in charge of transport


Ejusdem generis rule



The purposive approach (similar to mischief)

Fothergill v Monarch Airlines LTD

The case was decided on the difference between missing something and damage