STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Statutory interpretation = methods used by courts to determine the meaning of
given words in legislation.
The same process for statutory interpretation applies to statute and delegated
legislation: AIA 1901 (Cth) s 46.
Framework
- Literal v Purposive approach
- Flexibility in stat interpretation
- Common law approach
 APPROACHES TO INTERPRETING STATUTES
LITERAL APPROACH
Strict approach:
-
Courts apply the literal and plain meaning of the words in their ‘ordinary
and natural sense’, even where it does not accord with the purpose
underlying the legislation or leads to an unjust result.
Courts would not consider alternative interpretations of words to
determine if they were ambiguous
Engineers case; (Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship) (1920):
Higgins J: “The fundamental rule of interpretation, to which all others are
subordinate, is that a statute is to be expounded according to the intent of the
Parliament that made it; and that intention has to be found by an examination of
the language used in the statute as a whole. The question is, what does the
language mean; and when we find what the language means, in its ordinary and
natural sense, it is our duty to obey that meaning, even if we consider the result
to be inconvenient or impolitic or improbable.”
However:
- Pearce and Geddes (Re Prince Blucher; Ex parte Debtor), p 27, ‘there can
be no single, unambiguous or ordinary meaning’ to many of the words
and phrases used in legislation.
Disadvantage
- Assumes that words and phrases can have only one clear meaning
o Can lead to unjust results where words have multiple meanings
Consequence of the literal approach:
If the meaning of the words is clear and unambiguous, the courts are bound to
apply the meaning regardless of the result: Re Prince Blucher; Ex parte Debtor
[1931]
-
Applied the approach stated by the HCA in the Engineer’s Case (1920) 1612:
o The question is, what does the language mean, and when we find
what the language means, in its ordinary and natural sense, it is our
duty to obey that meaning, even if we think the result to be
convenient or impolitic or improbable.
Example of the literal approach
Re Prince Blucher; Ex parte Debtor (1931)
Lord Hansworth MR;
- Have to determine whether or not the specific words ‘signed by him’
cover and authorise a signature by the debtor’s solicitor.
Held: Courts have to consider the ‘explicit and very simple terms of the statute.’…
There is no ground for altering the words of the statute or giving a judicial
interpretation to it when it would amount to an amendment or alteration of the
plain terms of the statute.
‘GOLDEN RULE’
Historically
- Developed by the courts over time to give effect to the strict literal
approach
- Traditional limitation of the literal rule; Allows the literal rule to be
overlooked in favour of upholding the purpose that parliament intends
the law to have.
Where application of the literal meaning causes an absurd result or a result that
is inconsistent with the rest of the legislation, the court may attempt to resolve
the absurdity: Lord Wensleydale, Grey v Pearson (1857).
Main purpose of the rule is to correct errors in legislation rather than apply the
purpose approach exclusively.