Statutory Interpretation

Question 1

Fisher v Bell

Answer 1

The literal rule. Question over whether legal or ordinary definition is applied.

Question 2

Keane v Donoghue

Answer 2

Literal rule. Even 11mg of cannabis resin, which would not be used, held to be a criminal act. Literally interpreted every word of the statute.

Question 3

Leadbetter v Hutcheson

Answer 3

Mischief Rule. “Motorcycle” added into the interpretation in order to cover all areas of mischief parliament would have intended to remove.

Question 4

K v Craig

Answer 4

General Rule. Seems like an absurd result to allow a mental patient to be released simply because they no longer need detained. Could not be parliaments intention.

Question 5

Grey v Pearson.

Answer 5

General Rule.

Question 6

Hadley Case

Answer 6

Mischief Rule.

Question 7

R v Jordan

Answer 7

In “all A, B, C and other X” - a b and c all posses a common quality that defines X.

Question 8

Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza

Answer 8

Interpretation of definition of co-habitants living as “husband and wife” extended to include same-sex couples - not intention of Parliament, but fits with ECHR - shows developing interpretation.

Question 9

CILFIC

Answer 9

Because EU law is given generally rather than one fixed, rigid text it can develop over time.

Question 10

Litster v Forth Dry Dock & Engineering Co

Answer 10

Lord Oliver and Templeman: UK courts should read EU law purposively, to achieve the intended purpose of the directive even if it strays from the literal sense.

Question 11

IRC v Hinchley

Answer 11

Use of whole legislative text. Thought that when a legislator was writing one clause, they had the others in mind and so they are written similarly and with the same general intention and meaning of words.

Question 12

Bromley v Greater London Council

Answer 12

Lists. Interpretation limited by their common feature.

Question 13

PEPPER V HART

Answer 13

Interpretation should be done as to give effect to the intention of Parliament