CL Approaches to interpretation legislation
The literal approach (the fundamental rule): interpreting legislation according to the intention of the
Parliament. The intention has to be found by examining the language found in the acts. When we find what
these languages mean, we just obey these meanings (does not matter what parliament says however
inconvenient the result, we just follow it)



Eg, Higgon v O’Dea [1962]: “Every person who shall have or keep any house, shop, or room, or any
place of public resort, and who shall…Knowingly permit or suffer persons apparently under the age of
16 years to enter and remain therein… [commits an offence] s 84 Police Act 1892”
This section should apply to a place of drunkenness, gambling and/ or prostitution. However under the
literal approach, this applied an appellant rightly convicted of allowing under 16s into Amusement
Arcade.
“Such a result is clearly absurd…but where language is clear and susceptible of only one meaning it is
not permissible for the court to legislate by refusing to accept the plain meaning of the words…”
The “golden rule”: ‘A corrective principle’, allowing courts to modify the literal meaning where application of
the literal rule causes an absurd result or a result inconsistent with the rest of the legislation. This provides a
limitation of the effect of the literal rule where the court may attempt to resolve any absurdity.

Eg, Grey v Pearson – House of Lords: ‘the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be
adhere to unless this would lead to inconsistency with the rest of the instrument (legislation)’
The "mischief" rule: This allows the court to consider the problem that Parliament was trying to ‘cure’ in
passing the legislation, or provision, and allows the court to adopt an interpretation of the ambiguous words that
‘remedy/cure’ that problem (Also known as The rule in Heydon's case (1584))
The purposive approach (Most ideal approach courts use to interpret –shifted from the literal approach)





Evolved from the mischief rule
Apply the interpretation that advances the express purpose of Parliament in passing the law.
Eg, Maritime Services Board of NSW v. Poseidon Navigation Incorporated [1982] – Held: “The
choice here is between a narrow construction of the two sections...or a broad construction which
would enable the MSB to recover in full the actual cost to it, whether or not it uses its own men or
equipment in the clean-up operation” Purpose: ‘Prevention of pollution of navigable waters by oil...’
Evidence of “purpose” can be found: in the Preamble or Purposes section of the Act. However there
cam ne multiple and conflicting purposes.
The “Purpose” is the objective intention of Parliament. (not what the Members of Parliament thought
as they passed the Act – subjective and not the same as the “policy” behind the legislation)
o Start by looking at the provision, and the purpose section/ clause or preamble.
o Other evidence regarding the purpose may be admitted by the court.
Legislation/ Statutory approaches (CL mandated by legislation)


s. 15AA Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) (AIA): ‘Interpretation best achieving the Act’s purpose or object’
s. 35(a) Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic) (ILA) (Also – Mills v Meeking)
o Instead of having an ambiguity or inconsistency before a court could have regard to the
purpose (mischief rile), it allows a court to consider the purposes of the Act in determining
whether there is more than one possible construction.
Purpose and wording of Act can be clear and ambiguous (can produce a controversial result Cf. literal approach)
– therefore look at Primary Guides to meaning, Secondary guides to meaning
Interpretation in Context
Primary (Intrinsic) Guides to Meaning
Primary guides to meaning



The words of the Act (Number, Date, Long title (if before 1985), Short title (if after 1985)
The purpose of the Act
The whole context of the words in the Act
o Words in an Act presumed not to be redundant or necessary. If court can find no use for the
words, courts may say they are inserted ‘out of abundant caution’
o Words are presumed to be used consistently in an Act
 E.g. Fox v Warde, 1978: W convicted that she ‘being the occupier of a room, did use
the premises for the purposes of habitual prostitution’ under s 12(1) Vagrancy Act
Meaning of Undefined Words

Generally, words will be given their ordinary/ natural meaning. BUT
a) Where the statute concerns a particular section of community, the trade meaning may be taken
into account – Herbert Adams Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, 1932
b) Words may be given their legal as opposed to popular meaning - Fisher v Bell, 1961
Definitions in the statute
a) Usually found in the “Definitions” section at the front of the Act. (Not always!)
b) Distinguish between –
 Exhaustive definitions: e.g. ‘vehicle means … a motor car’
 Inclusive (or non-exhaustive) definitions: e.g. ‘vehicle includes… a motor car’
c) Definitions in Acts may modify the ordinary meaning of the word for the purpose of the Act.
d) Definitions of terms in similar Acts (Acts in pari materia) may be used, with caution, to interpret an
undefined term. (usually only appropriate where the Acts form a scheme of legislation) (extrinsic material)
Working with the Interpretation of Legislation Act 1984 (Vic)
a.
b.
c.
Terms and words: s. 35(b)(i), s. 36(2A), s. 36(4) ILA
 s. 35(b) Consideration… given to any matter or document that is relevant including but not
limited to(i) all indications provided by the Act or subordinate instrument as printed by authority,
including punctuation. (i.e. where the comma or semi colon exists, it means listing things
as provided by the authority)
 s. 36(2A) (Apply to Acts/ Provisions made on or after 1 January 2001) Headings to(a) sections, clauses, regulations, rules or items into which an Act or subordinate instrument,
or a Schedule to an Act or subordinate instrument, is divided; OR
(b) tables, columns, examples, diagrams, notes (being notes at the foot of provisions and not
marginal notes, footnotes or endnotes) or forms in an Act or subordinate instrument- form
part of the Act or subordinate instrument if(c) the Act is passed, or the subordinate instrument is made, on or after
Gender: s. 37 ILA - If an Act says ‘A person is guilty of murder if he…” does this mean females can
kill without being in breach of the section?
 words importing a gender include every other gender
Plurals: s. 37 ILA
(c) words in the singular include the plural; and
(d) words in the plural include the singular
Additional Tools
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic)
•
S. 32: Victorian statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with
human rights (see Essay Topic Notes):
o Use international law and the judgments of domestic, foreign and international courts
and tribunals relevant to a human right
“Context” used as an aid to interpretation of words – Latin Maxims


Ejusdem generis: Where general words follow a list of specific items, the general words are read as
applying to ‘other items akin to those specifically enumerated’ (items ‘of the same kind’)
o E.G can be used to expand or limit the class of items
o E.g. if you have an Act that refers to “kangaroos, koalas, wombats and other animals”, these
‘other animals’ (i.e. general words) may refer to other marsupials – same class & same genus
o Litter Act 1964: “Litter includes bottles, tins, cartons, packages, paper, glass, food or other
refuse or rubbish.” Is motor oil thus excluded?
 Here Motor oil can be included as the other class of rubbish are all quite broad (no
one specific class of rubbish/ no genus therefore here, no limitation of category)
Noscitur a sociis: A word is known by its ‘associates’. Meaning of word derived from its ‘context’.
o E.g. “…if a person shall unlawfully and maliciously stab, cut or wound” (R v Ann Harris,
1936). What about biting?
 Here the general word, ‘wound’ was interpreted as in the context of a ‘stab’ or ‘cut’,
inflicted with a sharp instrument. Thereby ‘biting’ was not considered as part of
context.
Difference: EG applies to identifying whether the general words fall within the same class/ category of items
whereas Noscitur defines a word by looking at the other neighbouring similar words & context.


Reddendo singula singulis: By rendering each his own. Where a text exhibits the pattern “A and B are
Y and Z”, Reddendo suggests that A should be matched with Y and B should be matched with Z,
achieving a sort of ‘symmetry in the text’.
o E.g. “Any person who buys any marijuana or cocaine without a chemist permit or a doctor’s
certificate commits an offence”
o Marijuana = chemist permit; Cocaine = doctor’s certificate
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius: The express mention of one thing (law students) is to the
express exclusion of others/ another thing (medical students). If two things might normally be referred
to together, but only one is mentioned in legislation, this could suggest a deliberate exclusion of that
other thing.
o E.g. An Act entitled ‘The Legal Practitioner’s Act’ contained a provision; ‘It is an offence for
a person other than a solicitor to engage in conveyance work…’ Here the Experessio unius
rule could apply of preventing barristers from doing conveyance work.
Common law value presumptions
a) Common law will not prevail over the purposive approach
b) Parliament does not intend to interfere with fundamental rights (human freedom)
• Coco v R (1994) - held that, normally, clear words need to have “an unmistakeable and
unambiguous intention” to limit a fundamental freedom.
• Other human rights covered by this presumption are the right to privacy, the right to refuse to
answer questions on the grounds that the answer might incriminate and the right to legal
professional privilege.