Statutory interpretation

• Literal rule:

  • Courts will use the literal meaning of a word even if the result isn’t sensible
  • Developed in the early 19th century
  • Relies on external aid
  • Respects parliamentary supremacy
  • E.g: whiteley v chappell, fisher v bell
• Golden rule:

  • Modification of the literal rule
  • Only used if the golden rule creates an absurd result
  • Narrow approach: word has 2 meanings and one may oroduce an absurd result
  • E.g: alder v george
  • Wide approach: words have one clear meaning but would lead to a repugnant situation so they use the golden rule to modify the words
  • E.g: Re Sigsworth
• Mischief rule:

  • 4 things must be discussed when interpreting statute
  • What was the common law before making the act
  • What was the problem in the law
  • What remedy did parliament come up with
  • What is the reason for the remedy
• • This rule gives the judge more discretion
  • often requires external aid
  • E.g: smith v hughes, royal college of nurses
• Purposive approach:

  • Allows the judge to look at the purpose of the law
  • Goes further than the mischief rule
  • Used in european court
  • E.g: magor and st mellons
• • Judges are required to consider context in which the law was created
  • Uses external aids
  • Considered unconstitutional
  • E.g: r v registrar, jones v tower boot