Statutory Interpretations Flashcards
What is the literal rule?
Where judges give words their ordinary meaning from the Oxford English Dictionary
Name 3 literal rules
R v Harris 1836, London v NER v Berriman 1946, Fisher v Bell 1961, Whitley v Chappel 1868
Name the case, if goods have a price label and are being displayed it is an invitation to treat and not an offer, the offer is made when the customer presents the item to the cashier with payment
Fischer v Bell 1961 - Literal rule
What is the golden broad approach?
Extension of the literal rule, can change the meaning of the word
Name 2 broad approaches cases
Re sigsworth 1935, Adler v George 1964, Maddox v Stoner 1963
What is the golden narrow approach
Where a word has two meanings and the judges pick the less absurd
Name the case, the defendant has prohibited an RAF station which was a prohibited place within the Act, he was prosecuted for having obstructed a member of her Majesty’s forces who engaged in Security duty in relation to the station
Adler v George 1964
Who quoted “If they are capable of more than one meaning then you can choose between those meanings but beyond this you cannot go”
Jones v Dpp 1962
Name one case of the narrow golden approach
R v Allen 1872
In R v Allen was the word “marry” to mean that they have to have a after party?
No, it means that they have to go through a ceremony
What is the Mischief rule?
Set to find out what parliament was meant to address, gives judges more discretion and power to favour an Act
Name the 4 steps of the Hayden case 1584
- What was the common law before making the Act, 2. Identify what was wrong with that law - what ‘mischief’ did it not provide for? 3. Decide how parliament intended to improve the law through the passing of the statute under consideration - what remedy has parliament put in place. 4. Apply the statute in that context
Which case included prostitutes being charged under the street offences Act 1959
Smith v Hughes 1960
What is the purposive approach?
A Morden descendent of the mischief rule, consider what parliament intended to be the purpose of the statute and applies it to the present case
Name at least one mischief rule
Smith v Hughes 1960, Royal college of Nursing v DHSS 1981, Hayden’s case 1584
Is the purposive approach in line with the law commission?
Yes, the report on the interpretation of statues 1969
“We sit here to find out the intention of parliament and carry it out, and we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactment”- Who quoted this under what rule?
Lord Denning - Purposive approach
Name at least 2 purposive approach cases
Knowles v Liverpool City Council 1993, Magor and St Mellors RDC v Newport Corp 1950, Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association 2001
Does the literal rule connect with the European Communities Act 1972, Where the UK courts must give effect to the European law so should also use their methods?
No, it links with the purposive approach
Name important details of The Fitzpatrick v Sterling housing association 2001 case
Judges look at the purpose of the housing Act, held that a gay man was entitled take over the tenancy formally held by a male partner, the term ‘family’ now means same sex relationship as well
What Act made in 1969 links with Knowles v Liverpool City Council 1993
Employees liability (defective equipment) Act 1969
name 3 advantages of the purposive approach
In 1969 the law commission describes it as a ‘rather more satisfactory approach’, promotes flexibility enabling the law to be applied as parliament intended, can help prevent absurd or unjust results, generally same advantages as the mischief rule
Name 3 disadvantages of the purposive approach
Can be seen to give far too much power to unelected judiciary, in some cases it can be argued that judges are updating legislation which should be left for parliament to do, can result in uncertainty in the law and subjective law making, can lead to inconsistency
Name 3 disadvantages of the mischief rule
Can be hard to discover the ‘mischief’, considered out of date, in some cases it’s argued that judges are updating legislation when it should be parliament doing so, it can lead to confusion because judges may change the meaning of what the Act says ( Stack v Frank Jones Ltd)