Statutory Interpretation
Advantages Example Disadvantage
- Parliamentary supremacy is maintained - Fisher v Bell (1961) - Can lead to unfair or unjust results/decisions - Be
- - Democratic - Stock v Frank Jones - Absurd results - W
- Maintains the Separation of Powers (1978) - If there are multiple dictionary definitions then (1
- Highlighting problems to Parliament it can’t apply - Lo
- Creates legal certainty - Draftsman do not always do their job perfectly w
Literal Rule Co
an
pe
- Prevents absurd or unjust results - Re Sigsworth (1935) - Can only be used in limited circumstances - M
- Produces a result that Parliament is likely - R v Allen (1872) - No clear definition of what an absurd result is “f
to have intended - Undemocratic as too much power is given to - M
- Respect the authority of Parliament as in judges “a
Golden Rule all other situations, the literal rule is sa
applied
- Prevents absurd or unjust results - McMonagle v - Too much power to unelected judges - RC
- Flexibility Westminster City - It is not the role of the judiciary to update and - Lo
Council (1990) change law to changing times, but Parliaments –
- Mayor v Newport - Out of date ve
Borough Council - Discovering the intention of Parliament is - 40
Mischief Rule (1952) difficult even Hansard
- Lord Denning – “fill in
gaps”
- Favoured by Europe and so helps to - Renton Committee - Allows judges to “fill in gaps” - Vi
comply with our international obligations Repot (1975) - Violating the Separation of Powers (1
- Likely to give effect to the intension of - Coltman v Bibby
Purpose Parliament Tankers (1987)
Approach
Advantages Example Disadvantage
- Parliamentary supremacy is maintained - Fisher v Bell (1961) - Can lead to unfair or unjust results/decisions - Be
- - Democratic - Stock v Frank Jones - Absurd results - W
- Maintains the Separation of Powers (1978) - If there are multiple dictionary definitions then (1
- Highlighting problems to Parliament it can’t apply - Lo
- Creates legal certainty - Draftsman do not always do their job perfectly w
Literal Rule Co
an
pe
- Prevents absurd or unjust results - Re Sigsworth (1935) - Can only be used in limited circumstances - M
- Produces a result that Parliament is likely - R v Allen (1872) - No clear definition of what an absurd result is “f
to have intended - Undemocratic as too much power is given to - M
- Respect the authority of Parliament as in judges “a
Golden Rule all other situations, the literal rule is sa
applied
- Prevents absurd or unjust results - McMonagle v - Too much power to unelected judges - RC
- Flexibility Westminster City - It is not the role of the judiciary to update and - Lo
Council (1990) change law to changing times, but Parliaments –
- Mayor v Newport - Out of date ve
Borough Council - Discovering the intention of Parliament is - 40
Mischief Rule (1952) difficult even Hansard
- Lord Denning – “fill in
gaps”
- Favoured by Europe and so helps to - Renton Committee - Allows judges to “fill in gaps” - Vi
comply with our international obligations Repot (1975) - Violating the Separation of Powers (1
- Likely to give effect to the intension of - Coltman v Bibby
Purpose Parliament Tankers (1987)
Approach
