stat interp Flashcards
what are the 3 historical approaches to statutory interpretation
the literal rule, the golden rule, the mischief rule and purposive approach
what was the literal rule of interpretation
strict interpretation using the literal meaning of words
what was the golden rule of interpretation
expansion of the literal rule to prevent absurdity
what was the mischief rule of interpretation
look at what parliament sought to remedy with the statute (closest to purposive approach)
what are the 3 main elements of statutory interpretation
text, purpose and context
what does the interpretation act section 5 (1) say about the purposive approach
the meaning of an enactment must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its purpose
what cases back up the purposive approach and the interpretation act
CIR v Alcan NZ Ltd 1994, Commerce Commission v Fonterra 2007, Z v Z (no 2) 1997
what does Z v Z (no 2) 1997 say about the purposive approach
courts interpret not ammend and they should give effect to the intention of parliament
what is the 6 step statutory interpretation method
- what parts of the statute need to be interpreted
- what in the relevant provision(s) needs interpreting - the issue
- make a reasoned purpose statement for Act or provision
- interpret what the provision(s) means in light of the derived PURPOSE, using principles of statutory interpretation
- Apply meanings to factual scenario
- reach a reasoned conclusion
what are some preliminary issues to consider before you start
commencement date, retrospectivity
what is included as internal contextual indicators
preambles, long titles, purpose sections, headings to sections and parts, diagrams, graphics, examples and other explanatory materials
which section of the IA says we can use relevant internal contextual indicators
Interpretation Act s5(3)
what cases back up being able to use relevant internal contextual indicators
Daganayasi v Minister of Immigration 1980, Brooker v Police 2007, Police v Emirali 1976, R v Salmond 1992
which IA section says “enactments apply to circumstances as they arise” - regard to social or technological advances
IA 1999 s6
which IA section says “enactments do not have retrospective effect, unless clear”
IA 1999 s7
which IA section says “commencement is day after assent unless stated”
IA 1999 s8
which IA section says “enactments not binding on the Crown unless stated” eg: Building Act 2004
IA 1999 s27
which IA section includes common terms
s29
define “means”
exclusive, prescriptive and complete
define “includes”
open - some meanings might not be referred to but still included
describe and give cases for the associated words rule
the meaning of a word determined with reference to words around, read in context and coloured by surrounding eg: Abrahams v Cavey 1968, R v Ann Harris 1836
describe and give cases for the limited class rule
where a list followed by a catchall term forms an identifiable class eg: Chadbourne v Ansell, R v Thomson, Prior v Sherwood
describe and give cases for the exclusion rule
where this is a closed list (doesn’t have the word “includes”), leaving something out is considered deliberate eg: Terminals (NZ) Ltd v Comptroller of Customers 2013, R v Joyce 1968
describe and give cases for the general/specific provisions rule
a specific provision in an earlier enactment prevails over a general provision in a later enactment eg: Keybank National Association v The Ship “blaze”, difference in the definition of a working day between the IA1999 and the Broadcasting Act 1989
describe and give cases for the respectivity rule
add “respectively” to the end of a sentence where there are two word sets related
what are external indicators of context
statements in parliament, explanatory notes, views of academics, other statutes, previous version of the statute on that topic, general societal context/background
what should you start with, internal or external indicators of context?
internal, then move onto external
what case tells us not to over-rely on parliamentary debates
Attorney-General v Whangarei City Council 1987
which cases mention societal context
R v Chief of National Insurance Commissioner, ex parte Connor 1981
which case is an application of the NZBORA 1990 principles
Brooker v Police 2007
what is s4 NZBORA 1990
legislation is not invalid if it conflicts with NZBORA
what is s5 NZBORA 1990 and what case went beyond justified limitations
rights are subject to justified limitations as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, Quilter v AG 1998
what is s6 NZBORA 1990
NZBORA consistent interpretation to be preferred
what is the presumption of law for penal statutes + the case that applies
strict/narrow interpretation, favour of the accused, ambiguity, R v Karpavicius 2002
what is the presumption of law for taxation statutes + the case that applies
in favour of the person subject to the taxation provision, Stiassny v Commissioner of IR 2012
what is the presumption of law for retrospectivity
this is a presumption against retrospectivity as in the IA 1999 S7 but can be rebutted by Parliament’s clear intention to the contrary
what is the presumption against extraterritorality
laws only apply domestically in NZ
what is the presumption that the Crown is not bound
as in IA 1999 s 27 the Crown is not bound
what is the presumption as to international law and the cases that apply
parliament will make law consistent with obligations, Rajan v Minister of Immigration 1996, Wood-Luxford v Wood 2014
what is the presumption against implied repeal and the cases that apply
Parliament needs to expressly indicate its repealing of an earlier enactment, a court should reconcile the two, if this is not possible the latter statute prevails, Police v Hicks 1974, Kutner v Philips 1891
what is the presumption for “ouster of jurisdiction” clauses and the cases that apply
they need to be given a strict interpretation - s27(2) NZBORA protects against these in Judicial Review, Bulk Gas Users Group v Attorney-General 1983, Zaoui v AG (No 2) 2005, Financial Services Complaints Ltd v Wakem 2016
what is the presumption for benefitting from wrongdoing and the cases that apply
to allow them to benefit would be inequitable. statutes should be interpreted in a way that prevents this, Riggs v Palmer 1889, Re Sigworth 1935
