Statutory interpretation

Statutory interpretation

1. Literal rule

   • The judge uses the words in the Act literally
     • Does not consider other implications of the words meaning
   • Historical approach
   • Judges are following the Acts interpretation
     • They are not interpreting the words of the Act/statute
   • Can lead to absurd or unjust results by being too literal
   • Disadvantage
     • Assumes the law can be perfectly drafted
     • Words have more than one meaning
   • Advantage
     • Consistent and certaintity in approach
       • Reduces litigation
       • Leaves the law making to parliament

2. Golden rule

   • Applies if there has been an absurd judgement
   • Parliament could not have envisaged the problem with the literal rule approach
   • The problem can be remedied with detriment to the Act's intention
   • The language of the Act allows for modification
   • Disadvantage
     • No guidance on how it should be applied
     • Inconsistent

3. Mischief rule

   • Judge must consider 4 things
     • What was the common law before the Act
     • What was the defect with the common law
     • What solution did parliament intend to use for the defect
     • What was the reason for parliament adopting the solution
   • Advantage
     • Very flexible rule
     • Judge will look at the gap that the Act was envisaged to fill
   • Disadvantage
     • May lead to judges re-writing the law

4. Purposive rule

   • Looks forward rather than back to what parliament intended to achieve when creating the act
   • Most used approach now when applying the law
   • Advantage
     • Covers unforseen situations
     • Fills in any gaps
   • Disadvantage
     • May lead to Judges re-writing the law in terms of their interpretation
     • Could make law uncertain
     • Not always easy to discover the intent