Techniques & Rules Flashcards
Reading Down
Interpreting a provision narrowly to avoid constitutional invalidity or inconsistency with higher law. Courts choose a valid construction where possible, even if it’s not the most natural reading.
Straining
Stretching the meaning of words slightly to avoid absurd, unjust, or impractical outcomes, while staying within reasonable limits. The words must still bear the stretched meaning.
Reading In
Adding words into the text that aren’t there, to fix an omission that would otherwise create legal absurdity or thwart the Act’s purpose. Only allowed when the addition is clear, minor, and consistent.
Reading Up
Interpreting a provision as broadly as needed to best fulfil the Act’s purpose, without overriding clear limits in the text. A feature of the modern purposive approach.
Ambulatory Interpretation
Words are interpreted according to their current meaning, not their meaning when the law was enacted, so statutes can evolve with society.
Equity of the Statute
Applying the statute beyond its literal words to achieve its spirit, particularly where a strict reading would miss Parliament’s broader purpose.
Dynamic Interpretation
Actively adapting a law’s meaning to modern values, realities, or technologies, while still respecting its original purpose and framework.
Golden Rule
Literal meaning applies, but courts may slightly modify words to avoid absurdity, inconsistency, or injustice.
Mischief Rule
Courts identify the defect the statute aims to remedy and interpret it to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy (Heydon’s Case).
Purposive Approach
Under s 15AA AIA (Cth), courts must adopt the interpretation that best achieves the Act’s purpose, even without ambiguity.
Preferred Construction (pre‑2011)
When multiple meanings exist, choose the one that best fits the Act’s purpose.
Best Achievement (post‑2011)
Courts seek the meaning that most effectively fulfils the purpose, even if only one interpretation is available.
Pragmatic Approach
Courts consider practical consequences, balancing literal meaning, legislative purpose, and policy to avoid unworkable results.
Literal Rule
Courts give words their plain, ordinary meaning, even if this yields an absurd or undesirable result. Assumes Parliament says what it means and means what it says, and judges do not look beyond the text.
Golden Rule
Applies the literal meaning but permits a court to depart from it to avoid an absurd, inconsistent, or unjust outcome, while still remaining text-focused. Requires minimal modification of words.
Mischief Rule
Identifies the mischief or defect at common law the statute was intended to remedy. Courts interpret provisions to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy (Heydon’s Case 1584).
Purposive Approach
Under s 15AA AIA 1901 (Cth), requires courts to choose the interpretation that best achieves the purpose or object of the Act, regardless of ambiguity. Emphasises legislative intent.
Preferred Construction vs Best Achievement
Pre-2011 (preferred construction): choose among multiple plausible meanings using purpose as a tiebreaker. Post-2011 (best achievement): actively seek the meaning that most effectively fulfils the Act’s purpose, even if only one construction exists.
Pragmatic Approach
Emphasises practical consequences and real-world application, balancing literal, purposive, and policy considerations to avoid unworkable or absurd results.
