Week 2 – Interpreting Statutes
The “rules” of interpretation
The literal rule
- Words in the statute are given their ordinary (literal) and natural meaning
- Fisher v Bell (1961)
o “offer for sale” versus “invitation to treat”
- “Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not then
for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to
its plain meaning because they consider the consequences for doing so would be
inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral.” (Lord Diplock, 1980)
The golden rule
- Resorted to when the literal rule presents an absurdity or gross anomaly
o Grey v Pearson (1857) – Lord Wensleydale
“the grammatical and ordinary sense of words is to be adhered to,
unless that would lead to some absurdity, or some repugnance or
inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the
grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as
to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no further.”
- Does not exist independently of the literal rule but comes into play as a back-up
when the literal rule has failed, to focus on a secondary meaning
o Parliament could not have envisaged the anomaly and would not have
accepted its presence
- Re Sigsworth (1935)
o Mrs. Sigsworth was murdered by her son. Her will stated her estate would go
to his son. Though the literal rule supported this, the court ruled it would be
absurd and bad public policy to allow murderers to inherit. Golden rule
applied to prevent this absurdity
The mischief rule
- Oldest rule of statutory interpretation
o Heydon’s Case (1584)
1. Consider state of common law before Act was passed
2. Consider “mischief” or shortcoming the Act was intended to cover
3. Consider the “true” reason for Parliament’s remedy of the
“mischief”
4. Interpret Act to achieve intended purpose
- Smith v Hughes (1960)
o Prostitute arrested for unlawful solicitation. She argued she didn’t break the
law for the solicited from a window and not the “street” as per the act. Court
1
The “rules” of interpretation
The literal rule
- Words in the statute are given their ordinary (literal) and natural meaning
- Fisher v Bell (1961)
o “offer for sale” versus “invitation to treat”
- “Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not then
for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to
its plain meaning because they consider the consequences for doing so would be
inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral.” (Lord Diplock, 1980)
The golden rule
- Resorted to when the literal rule presents an absurdity or gross anomaly
o Grey v Pearson (1857) – Lord Wensleydale
“the grammatical and ordinary sense of words is to be adhered to,
unless that would lead to some absurdity, or some repugnance or
inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the
grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as
to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no further.”
- Does not exist independently of the literal rule but comes into play as a back-up
when the literal rule has failed, to focus on a secondary meaning
o Parliament could not have envisaged the anomaly and would not have
accepted its presence
- Re Sigsworth (1935)
o Mrs. Sigsworth was murdered by her son. Her will stated her estate would go
to his son. Though the literal rule supported this, the court ruled it would be
absurd and bad public policy to allow murderers to inherit. Golden rule
applied to prevent this absurdity
The mischief rule
- Oldest rule of statutory interpretation
o Heydon’s Case (1584)
1. Consider state of common law before Act was passed
2. Consider “mischief” or shortcoming the Act was intended to cover
3. Consider the “true” reason for Parliament’s remedy of the
“mischief”
4. Interpret Act to achieve intended purpose
- Smith v Hughes (1960)
o Prostitute arrested for unlawful solicitation. She argued she didn’t break the
law for the solicited from a window and not the “street” as per the act. Court
1
