BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ... - Francis Bennion

BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 

Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 24, 25 Mar 2010) 

CONTENTS 

1. Introduction to Fifth Edition Updating Notes ...................................................................................... 1 

2. List of Provisions of Fifth Edition which are Updated below .......................................................... 2-6 

3. Table of Statutes mentioned in these Notes ......................................................................................... 7 

4. Table of Cases cited in these Notes ................................................................................................ 8-18 

5. Fifth Edition Updating Notes ........................................................................................................ 19-71 

6. Index to Fifth Edition Updating Notes .......................................................................................... 72-76 

1. Introduction to Fifth Edition Updating Notes 

These unofficial notes to the fifth edition of Bennion on Statutory Interpretation, titled Fifth Edition 

Updating Notes, which have now reached the end of 2009, are prepared on an ongoing basis by 

Francis Bennion with the agreement of the publisher of the work LexisNexis. They continuously 

update the fifth edition by giving information on new or newly-discovered cases, articles etc relating 

to matters dealt with in the fifth edition. Whilst most relate to British cases and/or legislation, there 

are a substantial number of entries that have arisen in other common law countries. 

This is the final version of these Updating Notes. Official updating will be provided by the 

forthcoming Supplement which is being prepared by Oliver Jones, BCL, Assistant Professor, Faculty 

of Law, University of Hong Kong, and will be published by LexisNexis in late 2010. 

The Fifth Edition Updating Notes are designed for two types of user. The first type is looking up the 

Index to the fifth edition and wishes to find out whether material referred to in an Index entry has 

been updated. This user should look up the corresponding entry in the Index to the Fifth Edition 

Updating Notes and go to the page in the Notes which is indicated in it. The second type of user is 

looking at a section etc in the fifth edition and wishes to find out whether it has been updated. This 

user should access the relevant page of these Notes as indicated below. 

The Fifth Edition Updating Notes continue with a list of Provisions of the Fifth Edition which are 

Updated below. This list refers to sections etc. of the work that are updated in what follows the list, 

giving page numbers of the Fifth Edition Updating Notes. To access a page click on the page number. 

Next follows a Table of Statutes mentioned in the Fifth Edition Updating Notes then a Table of Cases 

cited therein. 

Then comes the main body of the Fifth Edition Updating Notes. The page numbers given in them 

refer to the pages of the fifth edition. References in cases, etc. to previous editions of the work are 

converted so that they refer to the corresponding passage in the fifth edition. Cases, etc. can be 

accessed on BAILII, CommonLII or similar portals. 

At the end is an Index to the Fifth Edition Updating Notes containing entries corresponding to those in 

the fifth edition Index, together with some new entries required by material in the Fifth Edition 

Updating Notes. The Index to the Fifth Edition Updating Notes is continuously updated as new 

versions of the notes are produced. 

The Fifth Edition Updating Notes do not form part of the work and are the copyright of Francis 

Bennion rather than the publishers. 

For copyright information about the Fifth Edition Updating Notes and details about permission to use 

see www.francisbennion.com/pages/01/09/copyright.htm. 

For disclaimer see www.francisbennion.com/disclaimer.htm. 

www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn 

1



2. List of Provisions of Fifth Edition which are Updated below 

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 19 

Division One. Interpreter, Instrument and Enactment ................................................................... 19 

Part I. The Interpreter ....................................................................................................................... 19 

Section 1. To „construe‟ or „interpret‟?............................................................................................. 19 

Section 2. Interpreter‟s duty to arrive at legal meaning .................................................................... 19 

Section 3. Real doubt as to legal meaning ........................................................................................ 19 

Section 7. Types of interpreter (4) the subject .................................................................................. 19 

Section 8. Duty to obey legislation ................................................................................................... 20 

Section 9. Ignorantia juris neminem excusat .................................................................................... 20 

Section 10. Mandatory and directory requirements .......................................................................... 20 

Section 12. Where contracting out and waiver not allowed .............................................................. 21 

Section 14. Civil sanction for disobedience (the tort of breach of statutory duty) ........................... 21 

Section 15. Administrative or executive agencies ............................................................................ 21 

Section 17. Investigating agencies .................................................................................................... 22 

Section 18. Prosecuting agencies ...................................................................................................... 22 

Section 19. Courts and other adjudicating authorities ...................................................................... 22 

Section 20. Interpretation by adjudicating authorities ...................................................................... 23 

Section 21. Doctrine of judicial notice .............................................................................................. 24 

Section 23. Adjudicating authorities with appellate jurisdiction ...................................................... 24 

Section 24. Judicial review ............................................................................................................... 25 

Section 26. Dynamic processing of legislation by courts and other enforcement agencies .............. 25 

Section 28. Types of Act ................................................................................................................... 25 

Part II. The Instrument to be Interpreted: Acts of Parliament ...................................................... 25 

Section 28. Types of Act ................................................................................................................... 25 

Section 32. Overriding effect of an Act ............................................................................................ 25 

Section 33. Uniqueness of an Act ..................................................................................................... 26 

Section 34. Whether an Act binds the Crown: the doctrine of Crown immunity ............................. 26 

Section 38. Royal assent (signification)............................................................................................ 26 

Section 45. Settling of text of Act and promulgation........................................................................ 26 

Section 48. Nature of a prerogative instrument ................................................................................ 26 

Part III. The Instrument to be Interpreted: Subordinate Legislation ........................................... 27 

Section 50. Nature of delegated legislation ...................................................................................... 27 

Section 51. Parliamentary control of delegated legislation ............................................................... 27 

Section 58. Ultra vires delegated legislation ..................................................................................... 27 

Section 59. Delegated legislation: the rule of primary intention....................................................... 28 

Section 65. Types of delegated legislation: (5) byelaws ................................................................... 28 

Section 66. Types of delegated legislation: (6) other instruments .................................................... 28 

Part IV. Commencement, Amendment and Repeal of Acts ............................................................ 28 

Section 78. Textual amendment ........................................................................................................ 28 

Section 81. Amendment by delegated legislation ............................................................................. 29 

Section 82. Consequential amendment ............................................................................................. 29 

Section 83. References to an amended enactment ............................................................................ 29 

Section 85. Meaning of „repeal‟........................................................................................................ 29 

Section 87. Implied repeal ................................................................................................................ 29 

Section 88. Generalia specialibus non derogant ............................................................................... 29 

Section 89. Savings on repeal ........................................................................................................... 30 

Section 96. Transitional provisions on repeal, amendment etc ......................................................... 30 

Section 97. Presumption against retrospective operation ................................................................. 30 

Section 98. Retrospective operation: procedural provisions ............................................................. 30 

Part V. Extent and Application of Acts ............................................................................................. 30 

Section 103. The „extent‟ of an Act .................................................................................................. 30 


2



Section 104. Uniform meaning throughout area of extent ................................................................ 31 

Section 105. Composition of an enactment‟s territory...................................................................... 31 

Section 106. Presumption of United Kingdom extent ...................................................................... 31 

Section 128. General principles as to application ............................................................................. 31 

Section 129. Application to foreigners and foreign matters within the territory .............................. 31 

Section 131. Application to Britons and British matters outside the territory .................................. 32 

Section 133. Deemed location of an omission .................................................................................. 32 

Section 134. Deemed location of composite act or composite omission .......................................... 32 

Part VI. The Enactment and the Facts ............................................................................................. 32 

Section 136. Applying the enactment to the facts ............................................................................. 32 

Section 139. Selective comminution ................................................................................................. 32 

Section 142. Drafting presumed competent ...................................................................................... 32 

Section 144. The legal thrust............................................................................................................. 33 

Section 145. Relevant and irrelevant facts ........................................................................................ 33 

Section 146. Proof of relevant facts .................................................................................................. 33 

Section 149. Opposing constructions of an enactment ..................................................................... 33 

Division Two. The Legal Meaning of an Enactment ........................................................................ 33 

Part VII. Grammatical and Strained Constructions ....................................................................... 33 

Section 150. Nature of the legal meaning ......................................................................................... 33 

Section 158. When strained construction needed ............................................................................. 34 

Part VIII. Legislative Intention ......................................................................................................... 34 

Section 163: Legislative intention as the paramount criterion .......................................................... 34 

Section 164. Is legislative intention fictitious? ................................................................................. 34 

Section 166. The duplex approach to legislative intention ............................................................... 34 

Section 167. Legislative intention and delegation to the court ......................................................... 34 

Section 171. Intention distinguished from motive ............................................................................ 35 

Part IX. Filling in the Textual Detail ................................................................................................. 35 

Section 172. Nature of a legislative implication ............................................................................... 35 

Section 173. Is it legitimate to draw implications? ........................................................................... 35 

Section 174. When legislative implications are legitimate ............................................................... 35 

Section 175. When legislative implications affect related law ......................................................... 36 

Section 176. Dynamic processing by the court (stare decisis) .......................................................... 36 

Section 177. Interstitial articulation (general) ................................................................................... 36 

Section 179. Interstitial articulation by the court .............................................................................. 37 

Part X. Interpretative Criteria and Interpretative Factors ............................................................ 37 

Section 182. Strict and liberal construction ...................................................................................... 37 

Section 185. Interpretative factors all pointing one way ................................................................... 37 

Division Three. Rules of Construction .............................................................................................. 37 

Part XI. Rules of Construction (General) ......................................................................................... 37 

Section 192. Nature of rules of construction ..................................................................................... 37 

Section 193. Basic rule of statutory interpretation ............................................................................ 38 

Section 195. The plain meaning rule ................................................................................................ 38 

Section 197. The commonsense construction rule ............................................................................ 38 

Section 198. The rule ut res magis valeat quam pereat ..................................................................... 39 

Part XII Rules of Construction Laid Down by Statute ................................................................... 39 

Section 199. Statutory definitions ..................................................................................................... 39 

Section 200. The Interpretation Act 1978 ......................................................................................... 40 

Part XIII. The Informed Interpretation Rule (General) ................................................................. 40 

Section 201. Statement of the rule .................................................................................................... 40 

Section 202 The „context‟ of an enactment ...................................................................................... 41 

Section 205. Interpreter‟s need for legal knowledge ........................................................................ 41 

Section 210. The pre-Act law ........................................................................................................... 41 


3



Section 211. Consolidation Acts ....................................................................................................... 41 

Section 213. Meaning of enacting history ........................................................................................ 42 

Section 217. Use of Hansard ............................................................................................................. 42 

Section 220. Special restriction on parliamentary materials (the exclusionary rule) ........................ 42 

Section 221. Use of international treaties ......................................................................................... 42 

Section 231. The basic rule ............................................................................................................... 43 

Section 232. Use of official statements on meaning of Act .............................................................. 43 

Section 233. Use of delegated legislation made under Act ............................................................... 43 

Section 234. Use of later Acts in pari materia .................................................................................. 44 

Section 235. Use of judicial decisions on Act .................................................................................. 44 

Part XV. The Functional Construction Rule .................................................................................... 44 

Section 238. Statement of the rule .................................................................................................... 44 

Section 242. The proviso .................................................................................................................. 44 

Section 245. The long title ................................................................................................................ 44 

Section 247. The purpose clause 734 ................................................................................................ 45 

Section 250. Examples ...................................................................................................................... 45 

Section 255. Heading ........................................................................................................................ 45 

Section 256. Section name (sidenote, heading or title) ..................................................................... 45 

Section 257. Format .......................................................................................................................... 45 

Section 258. Punctuation .................................................................................................................. 45 

Section 259. Nature of incorporation by reference ........................................................................... 45 

Section 260. Archival drafting .......................................................................................................... 46 

Division Four. Interpretative Principles Derived from Legal Policy ............................................. 46 

Part XVI. Interpretative Principles (General) ................................................................................. 46 

Section 263. Nature of legal policy ................................................................................................... 46 

Section 264. Law should serve the public interest ............................................................................ 46 

Section 265. Law should be just and fair .......................................................................................... 46 

Section 266. Law should be certain and predictable ......................................................................... 47 

Section 267. Law should not operate retrospectively ....................................................................... 47 

Section 268. Law should be coherent and self-consistent ................................................................. 47 

Section 269. Law should not be subject to casual change ................................................................ 47 

Section 270. Municipal law should conform to international law .................................................... 47 

Part XVII. Principle against doubtful penalisation ......................................................................... 48 

Section 271. Principle against penalisation under a doubtful law .................................................... 48 

Section 273. Statutory restraint of the person ................................................................................... 48 

Section 278. Statutory interference with economic interests ............................................................ 49 

Section 281. Statutory interference with rights of legal process ....................................................... 49 

Division Five. Interpretative Presumptions Based on the Nature of Legislation .......................... 49 

Part XVIII. Interpretative Presumptions (General) ........................................................................ 49 

Section 285. Presumption that literal meaning to be followed ......................................................... 49 

Section 286. Presumption that consequential construction to be given ............................................ 49 

Section 287. Presumption that rectifying construction to be given .................................................. 50 

Section 288. Presumption that updating construction to be given .................................................... 50 

Part XIX. The Mischief and its Remedy ........................................................................................... 51 

Section 294. Party-political mischiefs .............................................................................................. 51 

Part XX. Purposive Construction ...................................................................................................... 51 

Section 304. Nature of purposive construction ................................................................................. 51 

Section 305. Purposive-and-literal construction ............................................................................... 52 

Section 306. Purposive-and-strained construction ............................................................................ 52 

Part XXI. Construction Against ‘Absurdity’ ................................................................................... 52 

Section 312. Presumption that „absurd‟ result not intended ............................................................. 52 

Section 313. Avoiding an unworkable or impracticable result ......................................................... 52 


4



Section 314. Avoiding an inconvenient result .................................................................................. 53 

Section 315. Avoiding an anomalous or illogical result ................................................................... 53 

Section 316. Avoiding a futile or pointless result ............................................................................. 53 

Section 317. Avoiding an artificial result ......................................................................................... 53 

Section 318. Avoiding a disproportionate counter-mischief ............................................................. 54 

Part XXII. Construction Against Evasion ........................................................................................ 54 

Section 319. Presumption that evasion not to be allowed ................................................................. 54 

Section 320. Evasion distinguished from avoidance......................................................................... 54 

Section 322. Methods of evasion: doing indirectly what must not be done directly ........................ 54 

Section 324. Methods of evasion: repetitious acts ............................................................................ 54 

Section 326. Construction which otherwise defeats legislative purpose .......................................... 54 

Part XXIII. Application of Ancillary Rules of Law ......................................................................... 55 

Section 327. Presumption that ancillary rules of law apply .............................................................. 55 

Section 329. Presumption that public law decision-making rules apply........................................... 55 

Section 330. Presumption that rules of equity apply......................................................................... 56 

Section 331. Presumption that rules of contract law apply ............................................................... 56 

Section 332. Presumption that rules of property law apply .............................................................. 56 

Section 334. Presumption that rules of criminal law apply .............................................................. 56 

Section 335. Rules of evidence ......................................................................................................... 57 

Part XXIV. Application of Ancillary Legal Maxims ....................................................................... 58 

Section 342. Double detriment: bona fides non patitur, ut his eadem exigatur ................................ 58 

Section 343. De minimis principle: de minimis non curat lex .......................................................... 58 

Section 346. Impossibility: lex non cogit ad impossibilia ................................................................ 58 

Section 347. Necessity: necessitas non habet legem ........................................................................ 59 

Section 350. Presumption of correctness: omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta ........... 59 

Section 351. Agency:qui facit per alium facit per se ........................................................................ 59 

Section 352. Vigilance: vigilantibus non dormientibus leges subveniunt ........................................ 59 

Section 353. Volenti principle: volenti non fit injuria ...................................................................... 59 

Division Six. Linguistic Canons of Construction .............................................................................. 59 

Part XXV. Linguistic Canons of Construction: General ................................................................. 59 

Section 354. Nature of linguistic canons of construction ................................................................. 59 

Section 355. Construction of Act or other instrument as a whole .................................................... 60 

Part XXVII. Linguistic Canons of Construction: Interpretation of Particular Words and 

Phrases ................................................................................................................................................. 60 

Section 363. Ordinary meaning of words and phrases ...................................................................... 60 

Section 364. Composite expressions ................................................................................................. 61 

Section 365. Technical terms (general) ............................................................................................. 61 

Section 366. Technical legal terms ................................................................................................... 61 

Section 367. Technical non-legal terms ............................................................................................ 61 

Section 369. Neologisms and slang .................................................................................................. 61 

Section 370. Archaisms .................................................................................................................... 62 

Section 373. Homonyms ................................................................................................................... 62 

Section 375. Judicial notice of meaning ........................................................................................... 62 

Part XXVIII. Linguistic Canons of Construction: Elaboration of Meaning of Words and 

Phrases ................................................................................................................................................. 62 

Section 378. Noscitur a sociis principle ............................................................................................ 62 

Section 384. Ejusdem generis principle:general words followed by narrower genus-describing 

terms .................................................................................................................................................. 62 

Section 388. Reddendo singula singulis principle ............................................................................ 62 

Section 389. Expressum facit cessare tacitum .................................................................................. 63 

Section 390. Expressio unius principle: description ......................................................................... 63 

Section 393. Expressio unius principle: words of extension ............................................................. 63 


5



Section 397. Implication where statutory description only partly met ............................................. 63 

Division Seven. Europe ....................................................................................................................... 63 

Part XXIX. Community law and the European Court .................................................................... 63 

Section 404. Legitimate expectation ................................................................................................. 63 

Section 412. Transposing of Community law ................................................................................... 64 

Section 413. Effect of Community law on UK enactments .............................................................. 64 

Section 417. Remedies against Member States................................................................................. 64 

Part XXX. Human Rights Act 1998 .................................................................................................. 64 

Introduction to Part XXX .................................................................................................................. 64 

Section 419. Nature of the Convention rights ................................................................................... 64 

Section 420. Duty to take account of Convention jurisprudence ...................................................... 64 

Section 421. Compatible construction rule ....................................................................................... 65 

Section 422. Judicial declaration of incompatibility (primary legislation) ....................................... 65 

Section 426. Ministers‟ statements of compatibility regarding Bills ................................................ 65 

Section 443. Article 5 of Convention (right to liberty and security)................................................. 65 

Section 444. Article 6 of Convention (right to a fair trial)................................................................ 65 

Section 447. Article 9 of Convention (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) ..................... 66 

Section 455. Article 1 of First Protocol (protection of property) ...................................................... 66 

Section 462. Meaning of terms defined in or connected with Human Rights Act 1998 ................... 66 

Section 463. Meaning of „the Convention‟. ...................................................................................... 66 

Appendix E List of Terms .................................................................................................................. 67 

Appendix H Some responses to Code s 288 (updating construction) ............................................. 70 

II - Updating Construction and Common Law ................................................................................. 70 


6



3. Table of Statutes mentioned in these Notes 

United Kingdom Statutes 

Animals Act 1971 ................................................................................................................................. 59 

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 ..................................................... 37 

Communications Act 2003 ................................................................................................................... 65 

Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 ..................................................................................................... 23 

Criminal Justice Act 1967 ..................................................................................................................... 33 

Criminal Justice Act 1988 ............................................................................................................... 48, 57 

Criminal Justice Act 1991 ..................................................................................................................... 65 

Criminal Justice Act 2003 ................................................................................................... 33, 36, 45, 57 

Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 ................................................................................... 26, 32 

Criminal Law Act 1967 ........................................................................................................................ 46 

Defamation Act 1996 ...................................................................................................................... 20, 56 

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 ................................................................................ 32 

European Communities Act 1972 ......................................................................................................... 27 

Extradition Act 2003 ............................................................................................................................. 48 

Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 .................................................................................................... 40 

Freedom of Information Act 2000 ........................................................................................................ 63 

Gaming Act 1968 .................................................................................................................................. 58 

Hunting Act 2004 .................................................................................................................................. 57 

Limitation Act 1980 ........................................................................................................................ 58, 64 

Local Government Act 1972 ................................................................................................................. 36 

Local Government Act 2000 ................................................................................................................. 36 

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002................................................................................... 47 

Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 ...................................................................... 58 

Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 ................................................................................................ 23 

Patents Act 1977 ................................................................................................................................... 42 

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ................................................................................................................. 21 

Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 .................................................................................................... 35 

Road Traffic Act 1988 .......................................................................................................................... 64 

Supreme Court Act 1981 ...................................................................................................................... 36 

Terrorism Act 2000 ............................................................................................................................... 47 

The Immigration, Asylum and Natonality Act 2006 ............................................................................ 43 

Town Police Clauses Act 1847 ............................................................................................................. 22 

Statutes of other Common Law Countries 

[Australia] Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) ............................................................................................. 19 

[Ireland] Interpretation Act 2005 .......................................................................................................... 40 


7



4. Table of Cases cited in these Notes 

United Kingdom 

[1999] NISSCSC C55/99-00(IB) .......................................................................................................... 52 

A and others v HM Treasury [2008] EWCA Civ 1187, [2009] 2 All ER 747 ................................ 28, 58 

A and others v HM Treasury [2009] 2 All ER 747, [2008] EWCA Civ 1187 ...................................... 47 

A v B (Investigatory Powers Tribunal: jurisdiction) [2008] EWHC 1512 (Admin), [2008] 4 All ER 

511 .................................................................................................................................................... 23 

A v B [2009] EWCA Civ 24, [2009] 3 All ER 416 ............................................................................... 23 

A v Hoare and other appeals [2008] UKHL 6, [2008] 2 All ER 1 ................................................. 25, 41 

AAA v ASH [2009] EWHC 636 (Fam), [2009] 4 All ER 641 ............................................................... 58 

Admiral Taverns (Cygnet) Ltd v Daniel and another [2008] EWCA Civ 1501, [2009] 4 All ER 71 .. 23 

Adorian v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2009] EWCA Civ 18, [2009] 4 All ER 227 .............. 20 

AG’s Reference 004/2003 under s 36 of Criminal Justice Act 1988 v Suchedina [2004] EWCA Crim 

1944, [2005] 1 WLR 1574 ................................................................................................................ 48 

Aiden Shipping Co v Interbulk [1986] AC 965 ..................................................................................... 36 

Aribisala v St James Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd. [2007] EWHC 1694 (Ch) ................................... 21 

AS (Somalia) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 32, [2009] 4 

All ER 711 .................................................................................................................................. 47, 64 

Attorney General’s Reference (No 24 of 2008) [2008] EWCA Crim 2936, [2009] 3 All ER 839 . 33, 57 

B Osborn & Co Ltd v Dior [2003] EWCA Civ 281 .............................................................................. 52 

Baker v Crown Prosecution Service [2009] EWHC 299 (Admin) ....................................................... 62 

BBC Scotland v Souster [2001] IRLR 150, [2000] ScotCS 308 ........................................................... 41 

Beoku-Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 39, [2008] 4 All ER 1146 53 

Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v Dorset County Council [2007] EWHC 365 (Ch), [2007] 2 

All ER 1000 ...................................................................................................................................... 30 

Billig, Re Application for Judicial Review [2006] ScotCS CSOH_148 ................................................ 38 

Blackpool Borough Council v Howitt [2008] EWHC 3300(Admin), [2009] 4 All ER 154 ................. 60 

Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd and another [2008] EWHC 1756 (Ch), [20009] 1 All ER 

517 .................................................................................................................................................... 31 

Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd and another [2009] EWCA Civ 579, [2010] 1 All ER 26 

.......................................................................................................................................................... 34 

Bourne (Inspector of Taxes) v Norwich Crematorium Ltd [1967] 1 WLR 691 .................................... 62 

Bovale Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and another [2009] EWCA 

Civ 171, [2009] 3 All ER 340 ........................................................................................................... 23 

Bowers v Gloucester Corporation [1963] 1 QB 881 ............................................................................ 48 

Brent London Borough Council v Risk Management Partners Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 490 .......... 36, 43 

Briere v Hailstone [1968] 112 SJ 767 ................................................................................................... 58 

Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp [2010] EWCA Civ 121 ....................... 56 

BW, Re Judicial Review [2007] NICA 44 ............................................................................................. 27 

Cadogan v Pitts and another and other appeals [2008] UKHL 71, [2009] 3 All ER 365 ................... 53 

Carroll v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] EWHC 554 (Admin) .............................................. 33 

Coke-Wallis v Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales [2009] EWCA Civ 730 ..... 57 

Corporate Officer of the House of Commons v The Information Commissioner & Ors [2008] EWHC 

1084 (Admin), [2009] 3 All ER 403 ........................................................................................... 65, 66 

Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Medical Council & Anor [2004] 

EWHC 527 (Admin) ......................................................................................................................... 48 

Crofts & Ors v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 599 ........................................ 48 

Cummings v Granger [1977] QB 397 ................................................................................................... 59 

Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 432, [2008] 3 All ER 923.......................... 20, 46 

Dale Farm Dairy Group Ltd (t/a Northern Dairies) v Akram & Ors [1997] EWCA Civ 2125 ........... 35 

Davidson, Re Application For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 293 .............................................. 31, 36 


8



Director of Public Prosecutions v Wright [2009] EWHC 105 (Admin), [2009] 3 All ER 726 ............ 57 

Dolphin Quays Development Ltd v Mills and others [2008] EWCA Civ 385, [2008] 4 All ER 56 ..... 36 

Donaldson v O’Sullivan (Official Receiver intervening) [2008] EWCA Civ 879, [2009] 1 All ER 1087 

.......................................................................................................................................................... 47 

East Devon District Council v Electoral Commission (The Boundary Committee for England) [2009] 

EWHC 4 (Admin) ............................................................................................................................. 40 

Electricity Supply Assoc of Australia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2001] 

FCA 1296 .......................................................................................................................................... 35 

Elizabeth Court (Bournemouth) Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKSPC SPC00648 ................ 39, 46 

Etame v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2008] EWHC 1140 (Admin) ............. 40 

ETI Euro Telecom International NV v Republic of Bolivia & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 880 ............... 45 

Faulkner & Ors v BT Northern Ireland & Ors [2005] NIIT 3933_01 ................................................. 31 

Financial Times Ltd v Bishop [2003] UKEAT 0147_03_2511 ............................................................ 30 

Fletcher (Executrix of the estate of Carl Fletcher (deceased) v A Train & Sons Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 

413, [2008] 4 All ER 699 .................................................................................................................. 24 

Generics (UK) Ltd and others v H Lundbeck A/S [2009] UKHL 12, [2009] 2 All ER......................... 42 

George Wimpey UK Ltd v Tewkesbury Borough Council (MA Holdings Ltd intervening) [2008 EWCA 

Civ 12, [2008] 3 All ER 859 ............................................................................................................. 49 

Giles v Rhind [2008] EWCA Civ 118, [2008] 3 All ER 697 .......................................................... 34, 46 

Glasgow City Council v AD [2005] ScotSC 35 .................................................................................... 21 

Gordon, Re Application for Judicial Review [2006] NIQB 20 ............................................................. 48 

Goshawk Dedicated (No 2) Ltd v The Bank of Scotland [2005] EWHC 2906 (Ch) ............................. 20 

Grays Timber Products Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Scotland) [2010] UKSC 4 .................... 19, 25, 43 

Green & Green Scaffolding Ltd v Staines Magistrates’ Court [2008] EWHC 1443 (Admin) ............. 57 

Halcyon Films LLP v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKSPC SPC00696 ............................................... 44 

Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club & Anor v Corporation of London & Anor [2005] EWHC 

713 (Admin) ...................................................................................................................................... 55 

Hanchett-Stamford v Attorney General and another [2008] EWHC 330 (Ch), [2008] 4 All ER 323 . 24, 

66 

Hanoman v London Borough of Southwark [2008] EWCA Civ 624 .................................................... 59 

Hasan v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2008] EWCA Civ 1311, [2009] 3 All ER 539 .... 63 

Hatzl & Anor v XL Insurance Company Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 223, [2009] 3 All ER 617 ................ 43 

Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 ......................................................................................... 24 

Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 175 ..................... 29, 60 

HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai and Another (2006) 9 HKCFAR 574 ........................................................ 38 

HM Revenue & Customs v Dunwood Travel Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 174 ............................................ 28 

Holis Metal Industries Ltd v GMB & Anor [2007] UKEAT 0171_07_1212 ........................................ 31 

Home Department v Nasseri [2009] 1 All ER 116 ............................................................................... 20 

Housden and another v Conservators of Wimbledon and Putney Commons [2008] EWCA Civ 200, 

[2008] 3 All ER 1038 .................................................................................................................. 25, 55 

Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Secretary For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [2000] EWCA 

Civ 13 .................................................................................................................................... 27, 29, 34 

Isle of Anglesey Council and another v Welsh Ministers and others [2009] EWCA Civ 94, [2009] 3 

All ER 1110 ................................................................................................................................ 42, 51 

James, Re An Application for Judicial Review [2005] NIQB 38 .................................................... 52, 60 

JF & Anor (on the application of R) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 

792 ........................................................................................................................................ 41, 55, 65 

Johnston Publishing (North) Ltd & Ors v Revenue & Customs [2006] UKSPC SPC00564 ................ 40 

JT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] Civ 878, [2009] 2 All ER 1213 

.......................................................................................................................................................... 37 

Kay v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2008] UKHL 69 ............................................... 33, 63 

Kay v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2008] UKHL 69, [2009] 2 All ER 935 ............................. 50 


9



Kennet District Council v Young & Ors [1998] EWHC Admin 938 .................................................... 32 

Kensington International Ltd. v Republic of the Congo [2007] EWHC 1632 (Comm) ........................ 30 

King, Re Application for Judicial Review [2002] NICA 48.................................................................. 55 

Kirk v Walton [2008] EWHC 1780 (QB), [2009] 1 All ER 257 ........................................................... 22 

KJM Superbikes Limited v Hinton [2008] EWCA Civ 1280 ................................................................ 22 

Knowsley Housing Trust v White [2008] UKHL 70 ............................................................................. 49 

Ladele v London Borough of Islington [2009] EWCA Civ 1357 ......................................................... 66 

Langley v Preston Crown Court & Ors [2008] EWHC 2623 (Admin) ................................................ 22 

Legal Services Commission v Rasool [2008] 3 All ER 381, [2008] EWCA Civ 154 ........................... 33 

Lessex Ltd v HM Inspector of Taxes [2003] UKSC SPC00391 ............................................................ 50 

Lewisham London Borough Council v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43, [2008] 4 All ER 525 ................... 42 

London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 763 ......................................... 55 

Lt. Col. S N Saggar Ministry of Defence [2004] UKEAT 1385_01_1006............................................ 58 

Majorstake Ltd v Curtis [2008] UKHL 10, [2008] 2 All ER 303 ......................................................... 60 

Manchester City Council v Moran [2009] UKHL 36, [2009] 4 All ER 161 ........................................ 60 

Marks & Spencer plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2009] UKHL 8 ................................. 64 

Martin, Application for judicial review [2000] NIQB 8 ....................................................................... 47 

Mason v Boscawen [2008] EWHC 3100 (Ch) at [40]........................................................................... 53 



Masri v Consolidated Contractors International Co SAL and others [2009] UKHL 43, [2009] 4 All 

ER 847 .............................................................................................................................................. 31 

Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Withers LLP [2008] 3 All ER 417, [2007] EWHC 2733 (Ch) ................... 32 

Matuszowicz v Kingston Upon Hull City Council [2009] EWCA Civ 22, [2009] 3 All ER 685 .......... 60 

McNally v Secretary Of State For Education & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 332 .................................... 55 

Medcalf v Weatherill and Another [2002] UKHL 27 at [20] ................................................................ 28 

MH (Syria) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 226, [2009] 3 All ER 

564 .................................................................................................................................................... 43 

Midlands Co-Operative Society Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs [2008] EWCA Civ 305 .................... 59 

Moore v Scottish Daily Record & Sunday Mail Ltd [2007] ScotCS CSOH_24 ............................. 55, 56 

Mucelli v Government of the Republic of Albania [2009] UKHL 2, [2009] 3 All ER 1035................. 38 

N & Anor, Re Application for Judicial Review [2005] NIQB 75 .......................................................... 28 

Nolan v Wright [2009] EWHC 305(Ch), [2009] 3 All ER 823 ............................................................ 20 

O'Byrne v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [1996] EWCA Civ 499 

.......................................................................................................................................................... 29 

Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 308 ........................... 27, 30 

Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 25, [2009] 3 All ER 1061 26, 30 

Office of Fair Trading v Foxtons Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 288, 3 All ER 697 ....................................... 25 

Ofolue and another v Bossert and another [2009] UKHL 16, [2009] 3 All ER 93 .............................. 58 

Okandeji v Bow Street Magistrates Court & Ors [2005] EWHC 2925 (Admin) ................................. 23 

Omagh District Council, Re Judicial Review [2007] NIQB 61 ............................................................ 60 

Optos Plc v Revenue & Customs [2006] UKSPC SPC00560 ............................................................... 39 

Oyarce v Cheshire County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 434, [2008] 4 All ER 907 .............................. 28 

Palm Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWHC 

220 (Admin) ...................................................................................................................................... 61 

Paulin v Paulin and another (Note) [2009] EWCA Civ 221, [2009] 3 All ER 88 ............................... 23 

Perrin and another v Northampton Borough Council and others [2008] EWCA Civ 1353, [2008] 4 

All ER 673 ............................................................................................................................ 37, 48, 63 

Pilling and others v Reynolds and another [2008] EWHC 316 (QB), [2009] 1 All ER 163 ................ 61 

Port of London Authority v AshmoreI [2009] EWHC 954 (Ch), [2009] 4 All ER 665 ........................ 58 

Procter & Gamble UK v Revenue & Customs [2008] EWHC 1558 (Ch) ............................................ 62 

Procurator Fiscal, Aberdeen v Aberdeen City Council [1999] ScotHC 176 ........................................ 52 


10



Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1997] IEHC 181; [1998] 2 IR 113 ........................... 30, 38 

Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1998] 2 IR 113 ......................................................... 30, 38 

R (Bhatt Murphy) v The Independent Assessor [2008] EWCA Civ 755 ............................................... 55 

R (on the application of A) v London Borough of Croydon [2009] UKSC 8 .................................. 41, 65 

R (on the application of A) v Westminster City Council [1997] EWCA Civ 1032 ............................... 50 

R (on the application of AC) v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWHC 3036 (Admin), at [2] .......... 24 

R (on the application of AM (Cameroon)) v Asylum & Immigration Tribunal & Anor [2008] EWCA 

Civ 100, [2008] 4 All ER 1159 ......................................................................................................... 56 

R (On The Application of Animal Defenders International v Secretary of State For Culture, Media 

and Sport [2008] 2 WLR 781, [2008] UKHL 15 .............................................................................. 65 

R (on the application of Association of British Travel Agents Ltd (ABTA)) v Civil Aviation Authority 

(CAA) & Anor [2006] EWHC 13 (Admin) ....................................................................................... 56 

R (on the application of AW) v London Borough of Croydon [2005] EWHC 2950 (QB) .................... 60 

R (on the application of Baiai and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Nos 1 and 

2) [2008] UKHL 53, [2008] 3 All ER 1094 ...................................................................................... 37 

R (On The Application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs 

[2008] UKHL 61, [2008] 3 WLR 955 ............................................................................ 27, 31, 64, 66 

R (on the application of Bapio Action Ltd & Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & 

Anor [2008] UKHL 27 .......................................................................................................... 22, 26, 43 

R (on the application of Black) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 359, 

[2008] 4 All ER 151 .......................................................................................................................... 65 

R (on the application of Boyejo & Ors) v Barnet London Borough Council [2009] EWHC 3261 

(Admin) ............................................................................................................................................. 28 

R (on the application of Bradley and Others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] 

EWCA Civ36, [2008] 3 All ER 1116 ............................................................................................... 22 

R (on the application of Corner House and another) v Director of Serious Fraud Office (BAE Systems 

plc, interested party) [2008] EWHC, 714 (Admin); [2008] UKHL 60; [2008] 4 All ER 927 ........ 22 

R (on the application of Corner House and another) v Director of Serious Fraud Office (BAE Systems 

plc, interested party) [2008] EWHC, 714 (Admin); [2008] UKHL 60; [2008] 4 All ER 927 ......... 22 

R (on the application of D & M) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2010] EWCA Civ 18 .... 38 

R (on the application of D) v Life Sentence Review Commissioners [2008] UKHL 33, [2008] 4 All ER 

992 .................................................................................................................................................... 57 

R (on the application of Dwr Cymru Cyf) v Environment Agency [2009] EWHC 453 (Admin), [2009] 

2 All ER 919 ..................................................................................................................................... 56 

R (on the application of Etame) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another [2008] 

EWHC 1140 (Admin) ........................................................................................................... 41, 53, 64 

R (on the application of G) v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2008] EWCA Civ 28, [2008] 

4 All ER 594 ..................................................................................................................................... 48 

R (on the application of G) v London Borough of Southwark [2009] UKHL 26, [2009] 3 All ER 18937 

R (on the application of Gilboy) v Liverpool City Council [2008] EWCA Civ 751, [2008] 4 All ER 

127 .................................................................................................................................................... 24 

R (on the application of Guest v DPP [2009] EWHC 594; [2009] Crim. L. R. 730 ............................ 22 

R (on the application of Hammersmith & Fulham LBC & Ors v Secretary Of State For Health [1998] 

EWCA Civ 1300 ............................................................................................................................... 50 

R (on the application of Hammersmith & Fulham LBC and others v Secretary of State for Health 

[1997] EWHC Admin 658 ................................................................................................................ 49 

R (on the application of Heffernan) v Rent Service [2008] UKHL 58, [2009] 1 All ER 173 ............... 39 

R (on the application of Hilali) v City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court [2008] EWHC 2892 

(Admin), [2009] 1 All ER 834 .......................................................................................................... 27 

R (on the application of Irving) v Secretary of State for Transport [2008] EWHC 1200 (Admin) ...... 64 

R (on the application of Kelly and another) v Secretary of State for Justice, Re: Gibson [2008] EWCA 

Civ 177, [2008] 3 All ER 844 ........................................................................................................... 50 


11



R (on the application of Langley v Preston Crown Court [2008] EWHC, [2009] 3 All ER 1026 ....... 65 

R (on the application of Lightfoot) v Lord Chancellor [1998] EWHC Admin 827 .............................. 27 

R (on the application of M) v Slough Borough Council [2008] UKHL 52, [2008] 4 All ER 831 ........ 60 

R (on the application of Mahamed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 

1312 (Admin) .................................................................................................................................... 41 

R (on the application of Newcastle City Council) v Berwick-Upon-Tweed Borough Council & Ors 

[2008] EWHC 2369 (Admin) ........................................................................................................... 22 

R (on the application of Perry & Anor v Secretary Of State For Social Security & Anor [1998] EWCA 

Civ 1117 ............................................................................................................................................ 45 

R (on the application of Sarwar & Anor,) v Secretary Of State For Social Security [1996] EWCA Civ 

801 .................................................................................................................................................... 28 

R (on the application of Secretary Of State For Home Department) v Burke [1998] EWHC Admin 

913 .............................................................................................................................................. 27, 29 

R (on the application of Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and another) v Secretary of State 

for Communities and Local Government (Shropshire County Council, interested party) [2008] 

EWCA Civ 148, [2008] 3 All ER 548 ........................................................................................ 26, 42 

R (on the application of SK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 1204, 

[2009] 2 All ER 365 .......................................................................................................................... 49 

R (on the application of Thomas) v Greenwich Magistrates’ Court [2009] EWHC 1180 (Admin) .... 59 

R (on the application of Warden and Fellows of Winchester College and another) v Hampshire 

County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 431, [2008] 3 All ER 717 ........................................................ 58 

R (on the application of Wright and others) v Secretary of State for Health and another [2009] UKHL 

3, [2009] 2 All ER 129 ...................................................................................................................... 65 

R (on the application of) Attwood v Health Service Commissioner [2008] EWHC 2315 (Admin), 

[2009] 1 All ER 415 .......................................................................................................................... 21 

R (on the application of) JS (Sri Lanka)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA 

Civ 364, [2009] 3 All ER 588 ........................................................................................................... 43 

R v A [2008] EWCA Crim 2908, [2009] 2 All ER 898......................................................................... 58 

R v B [2000] EWCA Crim 42 ......................................................................................................... 20, 21 

R v Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4 ................................................................................................... 23, 57 

R v BR [2003] EWCA Crim 2199 ......................................................................................................... 25 

R v Cartwright [2007] EWCA Crim 2581 ............................................................................................ 30 

R v Chargot Ltd( t/a Contract Services) and others [2008] UKHL 73, [2009] 2 All ER 645 .............. 22 

R v Christopher Bristol [2007] EWCA Crim 3214 ............................................................................... 21 

R v Clarke [2007] EWCA Crim 2532 ................................................................................................... 23 

R v Cockburn [2008] EWCA Crim 316; [2008] 2 All ER 1153 ........................................................... 51 

R v Ikram and another [2008] EWCA Crim 586, [2008] 4 All ER 253 ............................................... 32 

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex p MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545, 156964 

R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20, [2009] 3 All ER 1 ...................................................................................... 57 

R v K [2008] EWCA Crim 185, [2008] 3 All ER 525 .......................................................................... 47 

R v Kelly [2008] 2 All ER 840, [2008] EWCA Crim 137..................................................................... 58 

R v L and another [2008] EWCA Crim 1970, [2009] 1 All ER 786 .................................................... 40 

R v Marsham, ex p Lawrence [1912] 2 KB 263 .................................................................................... 57 

R v Morgan, R v Bygrave [2008] EWCA Crim 1323, [2008] 4 All ER 890 ......................................... 53 

R v Murray & Anor [2006] NICA 33 .................................................................................................... 33 

R v Rahman, R v Mohammed [2008] EWCA Crim 1465, [2008] 4 All ER 661 ................................... 20 

R v Raza [2009] EWCA Crim 1413; [2009] Crim LR 820 ................................................................... 36 

R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex p Spath Holme Limited 

[2001] 2 AC 349 ............................................................................................................................... 29 

R v T [2008] EWCA Crim 815 ............................................................................................................. 48 

R v T and others [2009] EWCA Crim 1035, [2009] 3 All ER 1002 ............................................... 32, 45 

R v Zafar and others [2008] EWCA Crim 184, [2008] 4 All ER 46 .................................................... 42 


12



R. v Athwal [2009] EWCA Crim 789; [2009] Crim L. R. 726 ............................................................. 57 

R. v Horncastle & Ors [2009] UKSC 14 .............................................................................................. 64 

R. v S and I [2009] EWCA Com 85; [2009] Crim. LR 723 .................................................................. 59 

Re An Application for Judicial Review, Landlords Association for Northern Ireland [2005] NIQB 22 

.......................................................................................................................................................... 48 

Re An Application for Judicial Review, Landlords Association for Northern Ireland, [2005] NIQB 22 

.......................................................................................................................................................... 49 

Re Application by Local Government Auditor [2005] NIQB 52 ..................................................... 28, 36 

Re Application by the Local Government Auditor [2003] NIQB 21 ............................................... 35, 45 

Re B (children) (sexual abuse: standard of proof) [2008] UKHL 35, [2008] 4 All ER 1 ........ 32, 33, 57 

Re Dairy Framers of Great Britain Ltd [2009] EWHC 1389 (Ch), [2009] 4 All ER 241 .................... 39 

Re Hilali [2008] UKHL 3, [2008] 2 All ER 207................................................................................... 48 

Re Mary Robertson [2001] ScotCS 94 .................................................................................................. 60 

Re McE, Re M , Re C and another [2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 4 All ER 335............................... 29, 47, 59 

Re Metronet Rail BCV Ltd (In PPP Administration) [2007] EWHC 2697 (Ch), [2008] 2 All ER 75.. 24 

Re N (A Child) [2008] EWHC 2042 (Fam) ........................................................................................... 23 

Re P [2009] EWHC 163 (Ch), [2009] 2 All ER 1198 .......................................................................... 47 

Re Scottish Water [2004] ScotsCS 41 ................................................................................................... 51 

Re Secretary To the Department of Health v Kathryn June Ryan [1986] FCA 261 ............................. 19 

re UK Waste Management[1999] NICA 2; [1999] NI 183 ................................................................... 35 

Re WD [2007] ScotCS CSOH_139 ....................................................................................................... 53 

Re Webster (children) [2009] EWCA Civ 59, [2009] 2 All ER 1156 .................................................. 47 

Revenue & Customs v BUPA Purchasing Ltd & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 542 ..................................... 55 

Revenue & Customs v Premier Foods Ltd. [2007] EWHC 3134 (Ch) ................................................. 40 

Revenue & Customs v Walsh [2005] EWCA Civ 1291 ........................................................................ 48 

Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Stringer and others [2009] UKHL 31, [2009] 4 All ER 1205 

.......................................................................................................................................................... 29 

Roberts v Secretary of State for Social Security [2001] EWCA Civ 910 ....................................... 58, 63 

Ruttle Plant Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (No 2) [2008] EWHC 

238 (TCC), [2009] 1 All ER 448 ...................................................................................................... 46 

Scottish & Newcastle plc v Raguz [2008] UKHL 65, [2009] 1 All ER 763 ......................................... 44 

Scottish & Newcastle plc v Raguz [2008] UKHL 65, [2009] 1 All ER 763 where Lord Hoffmann .... 53 

Secretary of State for the Home Department v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWHC Admin 

261 .................................................................................................................................................... 62 

Sekhon & Ors v R [2002] EWCA Crim 2954 ................................................................................. 20, 21 

Serco Ltd. v Lawson [2004] EWCA Civ 12 .......................................................................................... 31 

Serious Fraud Office v [2009] UKHL 17, [2009] 2 All ER 223 ........................................................... 30 

Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local 

Government and Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 148 ................................................................................. 27 

Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Poets Chase Freehold Co Ltd [2007] EWHC 1776 

(Ch), [2008] 2 All ER 187 .......................................................................................................... 50, 56 

Smith v Northamptonshire County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 181, [2008] 3 All ER 1054 ............... 21 

Smith v Northamptonshire County Council [2009] UKHL 27.............................................................. 35 

Sonea v Mehedinti District Court, Romania [2009] EWHC 89 (Admin), [2009] 2 All ER 821 .......... 51 

Spencer v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] EWCA Civ 750, [2009] 1 All ER 314 ... 64 

Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others [2008] UKHL 46, [2009] 1 All ER 269 .. 64 

Stubbings v Webb [1993] 1 All ER 322 ................................................................................................ 25 

Syed v Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] EWHC 81 (Admin) .................................................... 62 

Szombatheley City Court and others v Fenyvesi and another [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), [2009] 4 All 

ER 324 .............................................................................................................................................. 25 

Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence [2008] EWHC 416 (Admin) .......................................... 28 


13



The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services v 

Andronikou & Ors [2007] EWHC 2307 (Admin) ............................................................................ 49 

The Serious Fraud Office v Lexi Holdings Plc [2008] EWCA Crim 1443, [2009] 1 All ER 586 ........ 56 

The Staff Side of the Police Negotiating Board & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department 

[2008] EWHC 1173 (Admin) ........................................................................................................... 41 

Transocean International Resources Ltd & Ors v Russell & Ors [2006] UKEAT 0074_05_0410 ..... 31 

Transport for London (formerly London Underground Ltd) v Spirerose Ltd (in administration) [2009] 

UKHL 44, [2009] 4 All ER 810 ........................................................................................................ 34 

Traynor & Anor, Re Judicial Review [2007] ScotCS CSOH_78 .......................................................... 29 

Ul-Haq and others v Shah [2009] EWCA Civ 542, [2010] 1 All ER 73 .............................................. 54 

United States Securities and Exchange Commission v Manterfield [2009] EWCA Civ 27, [2009] 2 All 

ER1009 ............................................................................................................................................. 27 

Ward v Chief Adjudication Officer [1998] EWCA Civ 1552 ......................................................... 41, 44 

Warren v Random House Group Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 834, [2009] 2 All ER 245 ........................... 56 

Watson and others v Croft Promosport Ltd [2008] EWHC 759 (QB), [2008] 3 All ER 1171 ............. 56 

Welwyn Hatfield Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2010] 

EWCA Civ 26 ................................................................................................................................... 54 

X v West Midlands Police [2004] EWHC 61 (Admin) ......................................................................... 55 

Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and others v Bedfordshire Police Authority ......................................... 42 

Yearworth and others v North Bristol NHS Trust [2009] EWCA Civ 37, [2009] 2 All ER 986 .......... 40 

Other Countries 

Australia 

A v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1997] HCA 4; (1997) 190 CLR 225; (1997) 142 ALR 

331 .................................................................................................................................................... 43 

Attorney-General for the Commonwealth & ‘Kevin and Jennifer’ & Human Rights and Equal 

Opportunity Commission [2003] FamCA 94 .................................................................................... 51 

Austereo Limited v Trade Practices Commission [1993] FCA 301 ...................................................... 29 

Austereo Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1993) 41 FCR 1 ............................................................ 35 

Australian Postal Corp v Pac-Rim Printing Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 640 ................................................. 62 

Bayliss and Medical Board of Queensland [1997] QICmr 6, (1997) 3 QAR 489 ................................ 52 

Bozidar Jankovic and Ljubica Kuga v Minister of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs 

[1994] FCA 1316; (1994) 35 ALD 261 ............................................................................................ 62 

Braganza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 318 ............................... 53 

Burgess v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 926 .................................... 36 

Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd [1995] HCA 24; (1995) 131 ALR 422; (1995) 69 ALJR 797; (1995) 

185 CLR 410 ..................................................................................................................................... 51 

Byrne v Transport Accident Commission [2008] VSC 92 .................................................................... 55 

C & E P/L v CMC Brisbane P/L (Administrators Appointed) [2004] QCA 60 .................................... 40 

Caltex Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd v Best [1990] HCA 53; (1990) 170 CLR 516; (1990) 97 ALR 217; (1990) 65 

ALJR 64 ............................................................................................................................................ 21 

Campbell v Tow Truck Directorate of Victoria (1995/34314) [2000] VICCAT 3 ............................... 21 

Chun Wang v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 70 .......................... 35, 54 

Clyde Francis Munnings v DW Smith [1987] FCA 281; 22 IR 254 ..................................................... 28 

David John Beatty & Anor v Brashs Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 128 .................................................. 36 

Director of Public Prosecutions v Eastman and Ors [2002] ACTSC 35 ............................................. 45 

Director-General Department Of Land And Water Conservation v Jackson And Ors [2003] NSWLEC 

81 ...................................................................................................................................................... 52 

Director-General of Education v Suttling [1987] HCA 3; (1987) 162 CLR 427 ................................. 36 

D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1; (2005) 214 ALR 92; 

(2005) 79 ALJR 755 ......................................................................................................................... 50 


14



Enfield v R [2008] NSWCCA 215 ........................................................................................................ 34 

Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Belperio [2006] VSC 14 ...................................................................................... 54 

Fairfield City Council v N & S Olivieri P/L [2003] NSWCA 41 ......................................................... 54 

Farnell Electronic Components Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs [1996] FCA 1135 ............................ 58 

Fexuto Pty Limited v Bosnjak Holdings Pty Limited & Ors [2001] NSWCA 97 ................................. 24 

Giannarelli v Wraith [1988] HCA 52; (1988) 165 CLR 543 ................................................................ 50 

Glen Michael Belbin and Australian Maritime Safety Authority [1993] AATA 253, (1993) 18 AAR 

208 (1993) 30 ALD 432 .................................................................................................................... 58 

Grundfos Pumps Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs [1997] FCA 234 ...................................................... 45 

Hanna v Migration Agents Registration Authority [1999] FCA 1657 .................................................. 48 

Hawkesbury City Council & v Sammut [2002] NSWCA 18 ................................................................. 44 

Hawkins and Anor v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1996] IRCA 236.......................................... 39 

Ignatious v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1395 ......... 60 

Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner v Wayne Cyril Hiscock [1995] FCA 1510 .................. 47 

Jacqueline Hamilton and Olive Mary Mcmurray v Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] 

FCA 1424; (1994) 53 FCR 349 ........................................................................................................ 21 

James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd v Barry & Anor; Seltsam Pty Ltd v Barry & Anor [2000] NSWCA 353 

.......................................................................................................................................................... 24 

Jurg Bollag & Anor v The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia & Anor [1997] FCA 

1146 .................................................................................................................................................. 55 

Kevin Walker v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1995] FCA 1136; (1995) 129 ALR 198 

(1995) 36 ALD 513 (1995) 21 Aar 147 ............................................................................................ 49 

L v Tasmania [2006] TASSC 59 ........................................................................................................... 24 

Lloyd v Police [2004] SASC 278 .......................................................................................................... 58 

Manly Council v Malouf [2004] NSWCA 299 ..................................................................................... 39 

Maritime Union of Australia v Burnie Port Corporation Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1189 ........................... 61 

Mark Anthony Coleman and Director of Public Prosecutions v Kevin James Gray [1994] FCA 1585 

.......................................................................................................................................................... 46 

Michael Munn v Agus & Anor (1997) 6 NTLR 84, [1997] NTSC 3 ..................................................... 39 

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Kumar [2009] HCA 10, at [21] ....................................... 70 

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Ye Hu [1997] FCA 1197 .................................. 39 

Minister of State for Employment Workplace Relations and Small Business v Community and Public 

Sector Union [2001] FCA 316 .......................................................................................................... 63 

Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA ......................... 48 

Moweno Pty Ltd v Stratis Promotions Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 376 .................................................... 40 

NAAV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228 ........... 34 

Nguyen v Minister for Health & Ageing [2002] FCA 1241 .................................................................. 36 

Parks Holdings Pty Ltd (trading as Gladstone Chemicals) and CEO of Customs [2001] AATA 562 50 

Pepper v A-G (Qld) [No 2] [2008] QCA 207 ....................................................................................... 62 

Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v Albert and Rose Khoshaba [2006] NSWCA 41 ...................... 24 

Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 ...................................... 19 

Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355; 153 ALR 490; 

72 ALJR 841 ............................................................................................................................... 29, 34 

QBE Workers Compensation (Vic) Ltd v Freisleben & Nisselle; City of Bayside v Johns & Nisselle 

[1999] VSCA 207 ............................................................................................................................. 52 

R v Abdul Haque Omarjee [1995] VSC 94 ........................................................................................... 29 

R v Ellis [2003] NSWCCA 319 ............................................................................................................ 24 

R v MJR [2002] NSWCCA 129 ............................................................................................................ 30 

R v Smith [2003] NSWCCA 381 .......................................................................................................... 24 

Radin v Vekic Matter No 1891/97 [1997] NSWSC 234 ....................................................................... 30 

Rani Santosh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 1493 .......................... 51 

Re Aboriginal Development Commission [1988] FCA 160 .................................................................. 28 


15



Re Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders Labourers' Federation v the Master 

Builders' Association of New South Wales [1986] FCA 380 ............................................................ 54 

Re Australian Securities Commission v Neil Lucas [1992] FCA 234; (1992) 7 Ascr 676 (1992) 108 

ALR 521 (1992) 36 FCR 165 (1992) 27 ALD 67 ............................................................................. 45 

Re Centronics Systems Pty Ltd; Maurice Latin; Tiberio Salice and Fabrizio Latin v Nintendo 

Company Ltd [1992] FCA 584; (1992) 111 ALR 13 (1992) 24 IPR 481 (1992) 39 FCR 147 ......... 49 

Re Commissioner of Taxation; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Melbourne); Douglas Franklin 

Booth; Norman Rosenbaum and Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Sydney) v Citibank Limited 

[1989] FCA 126 ................................................................................................................................ 47 

Re David Harold Eastman v Commissioner of Superannuation [1987] FCA 188 ............................... 63 

Re Interchase Corporation Limited (In Liquidation) and Sections 460 and 461 of the Corporations 

Law the Application of Gregory Paul Kelly and Richard Anthony Barber (Liquidators of Interchase 

Corporation Limited) [1993] FCA 595 ............................................................................................. 39 

Re Janice Beverly Neal v Commissioner of Superannuation [1987] FCA 182 .................................... 59 

Re Michael Franciscus Kalwy v the Secretary of the Department of Social Security [1992] FCA 489; 

(1992) 16 Aar 403 (1992) 38 FCR 295 (1992) 29 ALD 28 .............................................................. 44 

Re Ralph Phillip Sloane v the Minister of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1992] 

FCA 414; (1992) 37 FCR 429 (1992) 28 ALD 480 .......................................................................... 36 

Re Registrar of Liquor Licences v Peter Iliadis; John Iliadis; Yfigenia Iliadis; Ilias Spyridopoulos and 

Despina Spyridopoulos [1988] FCA 328 .......................................................................................... 49 

Re Sandvik Australia Pty Limited v Commonwealth of Australia and Collector of Customs [1990] 

FCA 386 ............................................................................................................................................ 59 

Re Stephen Richard Luckins; Ex Parte: Columbia Pictures Industries & Anor [1996] FCA 567 ....... 32 

Red Roll Pty Ltd v Multiplex Latitude Retail Landowner Pty Ltd, Multiplex WS Retail Landowner Pty 

Ltd and AWPF Management Pty Ltd [2008] NSWADT 200 ........................................................... 34 

Repatriation Commission v Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia NSW Branch Inc & Ors 

[2000] NSWCA 65 ........................................................................................................................... 39 

Repatriation Commission v William Harold Morris & Anor [1997] FCA 152 .................................... 54 

Schanka v Employment National (Administration) Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 202 ....................................... 61 

Seafarers' Retirement Fund Pty Ltd v Oppenhuis [1999] FCA 1683 ................................................... 25 

Secretary, Department of Treasury and Finance v Kelly [2001] VSCA 246 ....................................... 54 

Semunigus v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 240 ................................ 36 

Shantha Karunaratna Jayasinghe v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs & Anor [1997] FCA 

551 .................................................................................................................................................... 35 

Shields v Chief Commissioner of Police [2008] VSC 2 ........................................................................ 28 

Smith v Zinifex Australia Limited [2008] FCA 532 .............................................................................. 44 

South Pacific Air Motive Pty Ltd & Anor v Kenneth Magnus & Ors [1998] FCA 1107 ...................... 36 

Staines v Workcover/Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (S A) Ltd (Air International Pty Ltd) 

[2004] SAWCT 127 .......................................................................................................................... 55 

State Bank of NSW & Anor v Brown & Ors [2001] NSWCA 223 ........................................................ 24 

Supreme Court of New South Wales in ASIC v Oliver Banovec (No. 2) [2007] NSWSC 961 ............. 39 

Susie Boswell v the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade [1993] FCA 562; 

(1993) 118 ALR 719 (1993) 46 FCR 434 ......................................................................................... 59 

Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd v Mowie Fisheries Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 231 .............................. 63 

Tasmania v S [2004] TASSC 84 ........................................................................................................... 24 

The Distribution Group Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2000] VSC 418 ......................................... 61 

Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown [2003] HCA 54; (2003) 201 ALR 260; (2003) 77 

ALJR 1797 .................................................................................................................................. 24, 61 

Victims Compensation Fund v Scott Brown & Ors [2002] NSWCA .................................................... 61 

Walker v New South Wales [1994] HCA 64 ......................................................................................... 31 

Western Newspapers Pty Ltd v Chrisyian Warren [1994] IRCA 122 .................................................. 39 


16



Wojciech Marian Szelagowicz v John W Stocker, Brian G Gibbs, Gerald Neil Haddad and William 

Mark Tunningley [1994] FCA 1110; (1994) 35 ALD 16 .................................................................. 51 

Zoran Lozevski v Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd. [2004] NSWIRComm 314 ................ 58 

Ireland 

Action Aid Ltd v Revenue Commissioners [1997] IEHC 196 ............................................................... 41 

C & ors v Minister for Health and Children [2008] IESC 33 .............................................................. 52 

Comptroller and Auditor General v Ireland [1997] 1 IR 248 .............................................................. 44 

Crilly v T. & J. Farrington Ltd. [2001] IESC 60; [2002] 1 ILRM 161 ................................................ 42 

DPP v McDermott and Riordan (12 May 2005, unreported: see David Dodd, Statutory Interpretation 

in Ireland (Tottel, 2008) p. 109) ....................................................................................................... 30 

DPP v Power [2007] IESC 31 .............................................................................................................. 41 

F. v Minister for Health and Children [2008] IESC 16 ........................................................................ 44 

Iarnroid Eireann v Social Welfare Tribunal [2007] IEHC 406 ............................................................ 57 

IRC v Parker was applied in Health Service Executive -v- Commissioner for Valuation [2008] IEHC 

178 .................................................................................................................................................... 39 

Keane v An Bord PleanálaI [1997] 3 IR 200 ........................................................................................ 50 

Kelly v Minister for Defence & Anor [2008] IEHC 223 ................................................................. 49, 60 

Lawlor v Flood [1999] IEHC 10 ........................................................................................................... 19 

Lawlor v Mr Justice Flood [1999] 3 IR 107 ......................................................................................... 38 

Maguire v Director of Public Prosecutions [2004] 3 IR 241 ............................................................... 49 

Maguire v DPP [2004] IESC 53 ..................................................................................................... 19, 38 

Mullins v Harnett [1998] 4 IR 426............................................................................................ 30, 37, 38 

Nangles Nurseries v Commissioners of Valuation [2008] IEHC 73 ..................................................... 37 

Pierce trading as Swords Memorials & Anor v The Dublin Cemeteries Committee & Ors [2006] 

IEHC 182 .......................................................................................................................................... 56 

Pierce v Dublin Cemeteries Committee [2006] IEHC 182 ................................................................... 56 

Quigley -v- Harris [2008] IEHC ........................................................................................................... 61 

Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1997] IEHC 181, [1998] 2 IR 113 ................................. 30 

New Zealand 

Australasian Correctional Management Limited v Corrections Association of New Zealand (Inc) & 

Anor [2002] NZCA 181 .................................................................................................................... 56 

Avowal Administrative Attorneys Limited and Ors v The District Court at North Shore and Anor 

[2007] NZHC 714 ............................................................................................................................. 41 

Chamberlains v Lai [2006] NZSC 70 ................................................................................................... 46 

Commissioner of Inland Revenue v N Evans [2008] NZHC 1017 ........................................................ 41 

Frucor Beverages Limited v R T Fyers & Ors [2001] NZCA 109 ................................................. 35, 52 

Huata v Prebble & Anor [2004] NZCA 147 ......................................................................................... 46 

Lisa Cropp v A Judicial Committee and Bryan McKenzie [2008] NZSC 46 ........................................ 48 

Official Bay Heritage Protection Society Incorporated v Auckland City Council and another [2007] 

NZCA 511 ......................................................................................................................................... 45 

Transpower New Zealand Limited v Taupo District Council [2007] NZHC 999 ................................. 41 

Vector Limited & Anor v Transpower New Zealand Limited [1999] NZCA 167 ................................. 26 

Warwick Henderson Gallery Limited v Weston [2005] NZCA 272...................................................... 49 

Other common law countries 

Cable and Wireless (Barbados) Ltd. v Fair Trading Commission and others (No. 1970 of 2003) ...... 38 

Chang Mei Wah Selena and Others v Wiener Robert Lorenz and Others and Other Matters [2008] 

SGHC 97 ........................................................................................................................................... 34 


17



Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education (2000) Case CCT 4/00 ............................. 66 

Department of Land Affairs and Others v Goedgelegen Tropical Fruits ............................................. 38 

Du Toit v Minister for the Safety and Security of the Republic of South Africa And Another .............. 38 

Kao Lee & Yip (a firm) v Lau Wing & Anor [2008] HKCU 1667 ........................................................ 44 

Kok Chong Weng and Others v Wiener Robert Lorenz and Others (Ankerite Pte Ltd, intervener) 

[2009] SGCA 7 ................................................................................................................................. 50 

Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor [2008] SGCA 20 ........................................................................... 47 

Minister for Immigration & Community Services v Summerscales [2000] NFSC 4 ............................ 63 

Naduaniwai v Commander, Republic of Fiji Military Forces [2004] FJHC 8; Hbm0032.2004 .......... 46 

Prem Singh v Director of Immigration (FACV No. 7 of 2002) ............................................................. 58 

R & B Fallon Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal (civil) 3326 of 2008).......................... 42 

Re Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Act 1993 ....................................................................... 39 

Solel Boneh Building and Infrastructure Ltd and another v Estate of the late Ahmed Abed Alhamid 

deceased and others (2006) LCA 8925/04 ....................................................................................... 51 

State v. S.J.Choudhary, 1996 AIR SC 1128 ......................................................................................... 50 

Tse Mui Chun v Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2003) FACC No 4 ................................ 57 


18



5. Fifth Edition Updating Notes 

Introduction 

Page 6 Relevant Index entry: devolution 

On this see C M G Himsworth, „Devolution and its Jurisdictional Assymetries‟, 70 MLR (2007) 

31-58 and his paper in the 15th report (2004) of the Select Committee on Constitution, App 1, 

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldselect/ldconst/192/19204.htm. 

Pages 12-13 Relevant Index entry: ‘golden rule’ 

In Re Secretary To the Department of Health v Kathryn June Ryan [1986] FCA 261 at [15] the 

Federal Court of Australia said, referring to the first edition of this book, that the „golden rule‟ 

has been „somewhat battered by judicial decisions in contemporary times when principles of 

public interest, legal policy, predictability and purposive construction are from time to time 

mooted‟. 

Pages 12-14 Relevant Index entry: Book, this:nature of 

On this book as a code see Journal of the Australasian Tax Teachers Association, [2006] 

JATTA 27, footnote 44. 

Division One. Interpreter, Instrument and Enactment 

Part I. The Interpreter 

Section 1. To ‘construe’ or ‘interpret’? 

Page 23 Relevant Index entry: construe, meaning of 

„I shall use the words “interpretation” and “construction” interchangeably, as they are in the 

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)„: Murray Gleeson, Chief Justice of the High Court of 

Australia, „The meaning of legislation: context, purpose and respect for fundamental right‟, 

Melbourne, 31 July 2008, p. 4n. 

Section 2. Interpreter’s duty to arrive at legal meaning 

Page 25 Relevant Index entry: legal meaning:multilingual systems 

As to the position in Hong Kong, where legislation is required to be in both English and 

Chinese, see Legal Department note dated April 1997, www.legco.gov.hk/yr96- 

97/english/panels/ajls/papers/zzz2604z.htm. 

Section 3. Real doubt as to legal meaning 

Page 25 Relevant Index entry: doubt as to legal meaning:must be „real‟ 

Use of the term „real doubt‟ was endorsed by the UK Supreme Court in Grays Timber Products 

Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Scotland) [2010] UKSC 4, where Lord Walker said at [37]: „I am 

left in real doubt as to whether Parliament has, in Part 7 of ITEPA 2003, enacted [a certain 

scheme]. 

Page 25 Relevant Index entry: legal meaning 

Use of the term „legal meaning‟ was endorsed by the High Court of Australia: see Project Blue 

Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 at [78] and by the Supreme 

Court of Ireland: see Maguire v DPP [2004] IESC 53. See also Lawlor v Flood [1999] IEHC 10 

at para. 54. 

Section 7. Types of interpreter (4) the subject 


19



Page 36 Relevant Index entry: plain language movement 

By reason of the principle of the open court (see Index), judgments ought not to contain 

unexplained terms that constitute legal or other jargon. For an example see R v Barker [2010] 

EWCA Crim 4 at [13], [14], [25], [28], [30], [45] and [52] where Lord Judge LCJ used the term 

„ABE interview‟ without explanation. 

Section 8. Duty to obey legislation 

Page 37 Relevant Index entry: statutory duty:types of 

On use of the term sub modo cf Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nasseri [2009] 1 

All ER 116 at [32]. 

Page 39 Relevant Index entry: specialty 

As to an Act of Parliament as a specialty see Nolan v Wright [2009] EWHC 305(Ch), [2009] 3 

All ER 823 (claim to reopen credit bargain under Consumer Credit Act 1974 s 139(1)). 

Section 9. Ignorantia juris neminem excusat 

Page 40 Relevant Index entry: ignorantia juris neminem excusat 

„Ignorance of the law is no defence, but it can sometimes amount to mitigation‟: R v Rahman, R 

v Mohammed [2008] EWCA Crim 1465, [2008] 4 All ER 661, at [44]. 

Section 10. Mandatory and directory requirements 

Page 44 Relevant Index entry: mandatory and directory requirements 

Code s 10 was applied in R v B [2000] EWCA Crim 42. Regarding the first sentence in Code s. 

10 see McBride, Re Application for Judicial Review [2003] NICA 23(1) at [30] (preamble to 

Queen‟s Regulations says that they are to be interpreted „reasonably and intelligently … 

bearing in mind that no attempt has been made to provide for necessary and self evident 

exceptions‟, in other words, they are not to be construed literally and with the strictness of a 

statute). As to failure to observe a requirement for leave to be obtained for a step in legal 

proceedings see Adorian v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2009] EWCA Civ 18, [2009] 4 

All ER 227. 


As to the passage beginning „There is a recent tendency‟ near the foot of page 45, note that in 

Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 432, [2008] 3 All ER 923, at [22], the 

Court of Appeal held that the Defamation Act 1996 s 15 „constitutes a mandatory rule of law‟. 

As to the passage beginning „Where a requirement arises‟ near the top of p. 46 and continuing 

to the end of p. 47 see Robinson, Re Application for Judicial Review [2001] NIQB 49. 


As regards the first complete paragraph on page 46 see Sekhon & Ors v R [2002] EWCA Crim 

2954 at [25}: „Even if the terms “directory” and “mandatory” are not used the problem remains 

of answering the question “what is the effect of non-compliance with procedural 

requirements?”. 

Bowen LJ‟s observation about not closing the gates of mercy upon the applicant was followed 

in India by S. B. Sinha J: see www.tdsat.nic.in/11.02.2010/PNo.3of04.htm at [11]. 

Page 48 Relevant Index entry: consequential construction:mandatory and directory provisions, and 

The passage beginning „If the court were to hold . . .‟ immediately before Example 10.4 was 

considered in Goshawk Dedicated (No 2) Ltd v The Bank of Scotland [2005] EWHC 2906 (Ch) 

at paragraphs 107, 108. 


20




The words „A duty to do a thing in a certain way by implication imports a duty not to do it in 

any other way‟ were applied in Australia, see Campbell v Tow Truck Directorate of Victoria 

(1995/34314) [2000] VICCAT 3. 


The Federal Court of Australia applied the passage headed Statutory procedures in Jacqueline 

Hamilton and Olive Mary Mcmurray v Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] FCA 

1424; (1994) 53 FCR 349 at [34]. 


In relation to the passage on page 52 headed Interference with liberty, note the following: (1) 

The sentence beginning „Where an Act‟ was followed in R v B [2000] EWCA Crim 42; (2) In 

the case of an appeal relating to a criminal conviction the appeal court may not apply the 

mandatory/directory test expressly but, where it in fact considers the duty breached to be 

mandatory, may quash the conviction on the ground that it was obtained unlawfully: see eg R v 

Christopher Bristol [2007] EWCA Crim 3214. 


With regard to the passage headed Purely technical contraventions: (1) See Glasgow City 

Council v AD [2005] ScotSC 35 at [22]. (2) Note that Parliament sometimes states expressly 

that purely technical contraventions are not to vitiate an act: see eg Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 

s 14(11) and Sekhon & Ors v R [2002] EWCA Crim 2954 at [28]. 

Section 12. Where contracting out and waiver not allowed 

Page 60 Relevant Index entry: statutory right:contracting out of 

Contracting out may be disallowed because it involves ousting the court‟s jurisdiction: see 

Aribisala v St James Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd. [2007] EWHC 1694 (Ch) at [34]-[36]. 

For an interesting discussion of this section of the Code by the High Court of Australia see 

Caltex Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd v Best [1990] HCA 53; (1990) 170 CLR 516; (1990) 97 ALR 217; 

(1990) 65 ALJR 64, at [5]. 

Section 14. Civil sanction for disobedience (the tort of breach of statutory duty) 

Pages 73-74 Relevant Index entry: relator action 

As to the use of Local Government Act 172 s 222 in place of a relator action see Example 87.3 

and Birmingham City Council v Shafi and another [2008] EWCA Civ 1186, [2009] 3 Alll ER 

127. 

Page 79 Relevant Index entry: strict liability 

In relation to the reference here to strict liability note that Waller LJ said that strict liability 

„should only be imposed by strict language‟: Smith v Northamptonshire County Council [2008] 

EWCA Civ 181, [2008] 3 All ER 1054, at [29]. 

Page 80 Relevant Index entry: Ombudsman:general 

Legislation has not drawn the clear line necessary between standards of conduct justifying a 

finding of negligence and those justifying an adverse finding by an Ombudsman: see R (on the 

application of) Attwood v Health Service Commissioner [2008] EWHC 2315 (Admin), [2009] 1 

All ER 415. 

Section 15. Administrative or executive agencies 


21



Page 86 Relevant Index entry: Secretary of State 

„Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, which declares that the term “Secretary of State” in 

a statute “means one of Her Majesty‟s Principal Secretaries of State”, expresses a principle of 

constitutional law of considerable practical importance: all Secretaries of State carry on Her 

Majesty‟s government and can, when required, exercise any of the powers conferred by statute 

on the Secretary of State. The same applies, in broad terms, to the exercise of the prerogative 

powers of the Crown‟: Lord Rodger of Earlsferry in R (on the application of Bapio Action Ltd 

& Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2008] UKHL 27 at [33] (and 

see [34]). 

Pages 89-90 Padfield approach 

This was applied to the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s 37 (licensing of Hackney carriages) in 

R (on the application of Newcastle City Council) v Berwick-Upon-Tweed Borough Council & 

Ors [2008] EWHC 2369 (Admin) at [29]. 

Section 17. Investigating agencies 

Page 94 Relevant Index entry: anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) 

As to hybridity and appeals see Langley v Preston Crown Court & Ors [2008] EWHC 2623 

(Admin) at [23]. 

Section 18. Prosecuting agencies 

Pages 95-100 Crown Prosecution Service 

As to required prosecution practice and the need for fair notice to the defence, including the 

occasional need for a Brown direction in conformity with R v Brown (1984) 79 Cr App R 115, 

see R v Chargot Ltd( t/a Contract Services) and others [2008] UKHL 73, [2009] 2 All ER 645. 

Pages 98-100 Relevant Index entry: prosecution of offences:Shawcross exercise [New entry, not in 

fifth edition] 

See R (on the application of Corner House and another) v Director of Serious Fraud Office 

(BAE Systems plc, interested party) [2008] EWHC, 714 (Admin); [2008] UKHL 60; [2008] 4 

All ER 927, at [11]. 

Pages 98-100 Relevant Index entry: prosecution of offences:judicial review [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] 

As to judicial review in relation to cautions see R (on the application of Guest v DPP [2009] 

EWHC 594; [2009] Crim. L. R. 730. See further on judicial review R (on the application of 

Corner House and another) v Director of Serious Fraud Office (BAE Systems plc, interested 

party) [2008] EWHC, 714 (Admin); [2008] UKHL 60; [2008] 4 All ER 927, at [51]. 

Pages 100-101 Relevant Index entry: prosecution of offences:private prosecutions 

Akin to the right of private prosecution is the right to bring proceedings for contempt of court 

under CPR r. 32.14: see KJM Superbikes Limited v Hinton [2008] EWCA Civ 1280. These are 

public law civil proceedings with a criminal standard of proof: Kirk v Walton [2008] EWHC 

1780 (QB), [2009] 1 All ER 257, at [25[-[27]. 

Section 19. Courts and other adjudicating authorities 

Page 104 Relevant Index entry: separation of powers, doctrine of 

There is a „separation, in national government, between the powers of the executive and the 

powers of Parliament‟: R (on the application of Bradley and Others) v Secretary of State for 

Work and Pensions [2008] EWCA Civ36, [2008] 3 All ER 1116, at [54]. The case decided that 

where persons were aggrieved because a minister rejected a finding against them by the 


22



Parliamentary Ombudsman under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 „judicial review 

principles apart, their remedy is political, not juridical‟ (see [141]). 

Pages 109-111 Relevant Index entry: jurisdiction:ouster of 

In A v B [2009] EWCA Civ 24, [2009] 3 All ER 416, at [22] Laws LJ said: 

„It is elementary that any attempt to oust altogether the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction 

over public authorities is repugnant to the constitution. But statutory measures which confide 

the jurisdiction to a judicial body of like standing and authority to that of the High Court, but 

which operates subject to special procedures apt for the subject-matter in hand, may well be 

constitutionally inoffensive.‟ 

For a provision not regarded as an ouster provision see Okandeji v Bow Street Magistrates 

Court & Ors [2005] EWHC 2925 (Admin) at [16]. A court‟s jurisdiction cannot be ousted by 

mere implication: A v B (Investigatory Powers Tribunal: jurisdiction) [2008] EWHC 1512 

(Admin), [2008] 4 All ER 511, at [12]. As to ouster of jurisdiction see also the note above 

regarding Code s 12 and the Aribisala case. 

Pages 112-113 Relevant Index entry: advocate:lay 

Note that the question whether a person has a right of audience is to be determined solely in 

accordance with the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 pt II: see s 27 of that Act. For a full 

updating regarding use of a McKenzie friend see Re N (A Child) [2008] EWHC 2042 (Fam). 

Pages 111-114 Relevant Index entry: inherent judicial powers:alteration of unperfected judgment 

[New entry, not in fifth edition] 

As to a judge‟s power to recall and alter an unperfected judgment see Paulin v Paulin and 

another (Note) [2009] EWCA Civ 221, [2009] 3 All ER 88. See also page 114 footnote 1. 

Pages 111-114 Relevant Index entry: inherent judicial powers:appeal, relating to [New entry, not in 


As to power to grant a stay of execution pending appeal see Admiral Taverns (Cygnet) Ltd v 

Daniel and another [2008] EWCA Civ 1501, [2009] 4 All ER 71. 

Pages 111-114 Relevant Index entry: practice:directions 

In footnote 2 on page 112, delete second sentence. As to practice directions, rules of court and 

similar matters see Example 45.2 and Bovale Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and 

Local Government and another [2009] EWCA Civ 171, [2009] 3 All ER 340. 

Pages 118-121 Relevant Index entry: open court, principle of the:nature of 

Munby J referred to „principles of open justice – transparency in the modern jargon‟: see Re N 

(A Child) [2008] EWHC 2042 (Fam), at para. 20. 

Section 20. Interpretation by adjudicating authorities 

Pages 127-129 Relevant Index entry: discretion:judgment, distinguished from 

The distinction was applied in R v Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4 at [39] where Lord Judge LCJ 

said: 

„. . . although the distinction is a fine one, whenever the competency [of a witness] is 

addressed, what is required is not the exercise of a discretion but the making of a judgment, 

that is whether the witness fulfils the statutory criteria. In short, it is not open to the judge to 

create or impose some additional but non-statutory criteria . . .‟ 

In R v Clarke [2007] EWCA Crim 2532 at [29] the President said the decision whether to grant 

an adjournment „is usually described as [at] the discretion of the Judge, but in fact is a decision 

which reflects his or her judgment on an overall balance of all the material as it stands before 

him at the time . . .‟ 


23



The distinction was applied in Tasmania v S [2004] TASSC 84 at [6]; L v Tasmania [2006] 

TASSC 59 at [38]; Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v Albert and Rose Khoshaba [2006] 

NSWCA 41 at [34]. It was applied by New South Wales Court of Appeal in James Hardie & 

Coy Pty Ltd v Barry & Anor; Seltsam Pty Ltd v Barry & Anor [2000] NSWCA 353 at [3], 

Fexuto Pty Limited v Bosnjak Holdings Pty Limited & Ors [2001] NSWCA 97 at [3] and State 

Bank of NSW & Anor v Brown & Ors [2001] NSWCA 223 at [30]. It was applied by New 

South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Ellis [2003] NSWCCA 319 at [95] and R v Smith 

[2003] NSWCCA 381 at [95]. 

Page 130 Relevant Index entry: court:guidelines by 

In exercising its appellate function to lay down guidelines as to the exercise of a discretion, a 

court is not expounding a rule of law or practice or setting a binding precedent: Fletcher 

(Executrix of the estate of Carl Fletcher (deceased) v A Train & Sons Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 

413, [2008] 4 All ER 699, at [11], [24]. 

Where a statutory discretion is apparently open, as with the Law of Property Act 1925 s 49(2), 

there may be an unspecified determining factor (s 49(2) is subject to the fact that a deposit on 

the sale of land is an „earnest‟): Midill (97PL) Ltd v Park Lane Estates Ltd and another [2008] 

EWHC 18 (Ch), [2008] EWCA Civ 1227, [2009] 2 All ER 1067, at [52]. 

Page 130-133 Section 20(4) Relevant Index entry: differential readings: nature of 

In the Australian case of Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown [2003] HCA 54; 

(2003) 201 ALR 260; (2003) 77 ALJR 1797, at [10] Heydon J said: „It is, of course, common 

for seemingly small points of construction to generate such sharp and evenly held differences of 

opinion . . .‟. 

Section 21. Doctrine of judicial notice 

Pages 136-138 Relevant Index entry: judicial notice:fact, of 

The court will not take judicial notice of the alleged fact that the public perception of animals 

has changed in recent times: Hanchett-Stamford v Attorney General and another [2008] EWHC 

330 (Ch), [2008] 4 All ER 323, at [23]. 

Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that „local authorities are hard pressed, both in terms of 

manpower and money .[and] expend very considerable sums of money for the benefit of 

persons who have no lawful entitlement to be in this country‟: R (on the application of AC) v 

Birmingham City Council [2008] EWHC 3036 (Admin), at [2]. 

Section 23. Adjudicating authorities with appellate jurisdiction 

Page 143 Relevant Index entry: legal proceedings:academic or hypothetical point 

Patten J warned against construing an enactment in the absence of factual information, adding: 

„To construe the provisions in the abstract risks giving the words used an over-wide or 

unrealistic explanation . . .‟ (Re Metronet Rail BCV Ltd (In PPP Administration) [2007] EWHC 

2697 (Ch), [2008] 2 All ER 75, at [21], [22].) See also Code 5th edn p. 142 n. 7 (preliminary 

point of law). 

Page 144 Relevant Index entry: academic point 

For a case similar to Example 23.1 see R (on the application of Gilboy) v Liverpool City 

Council [2008] EWCA Civ 751, [2008] 4 All ER 127, at [2]. 

Page 150 Relevant Index entry: evidence:fresh evidence 

Fresh evidence will not be admitted if this would be in breach of the rule in Henderson v 

Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100 which requires a party to bring his entire case before the court in 

one hearing, rather than seeking a succession of piecemeal hearings: see Szombatheley City 


24



Court and others v Fenyvesi and another [2009] EWHC 231 (Admin), [2009] 4 All ER 324 at 

[2]. 

Section 24. Judicial review 

Pages 163-164 Relevant Index entry: declaration [New entry, not in fifth edition] 

As to the cases where under modern law a court will make a declaration see Office of Fair 

Trading v Foxtons Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 288, 3 All ER 697, at [52]-[60]. 

Section 26. Dynamic processing of legislation by courts and other enforcement agencies 

Page 167 Relevant Index entry: precedent, doctrine of:obiter dictum [New entry, not in fifth edition] 

The term obiter dictum derives from the Latin for a saying uttered „by the way‟, originally two 

words ob iter. The OED (2nd edn 1992) cites, from the title page of Augustine Birrell‟s book 

Obiter Dicta (1884): „An obiter dictum, in the language of the law, is a gratuitous opinion, an 

individual impertinence [that is something strictly not pertinent] which, whether it be wise or 

foolish, right or wrong, bindeth none - not even the lips that utter it.‟ In 2008 Mummery LJ 

said: „There is no point in cluttering up the law reports with obiter dicta, which could, in some 

cases, embarrass a court having to decide the issue later on‟: Housden and another v 

Conservators of Wimbledon and Putney Commons [2008] EWCA Civ 200, [2008] 3 All ER 

1038, at [31]. Nevertheless they are so cluttered up. 

Page 174 Relevant Index entry: per incuriam decision:nature of 

The definition given on Code page 174 was described by the Court of Appeal as „the modern 

doctrine of per incuriam in criminal cases‟: see R v BR [2003] EWCA Crim 2199 at [30]. 

Pages 174-175 Relevant Index entry: Lords, House of:precedent, and 

For a more recent example of an overruling under the 1966 Practice Statement see A v Hoare 

and other appeals [2008] UKHL 6, [2008] 2 All ER 1 (overruling Stubbings v Webb [1993] 1 

All ER 322). 

Section 28. Types of Act 

Page 188 Relevant Index entry: declaratory enactment 

Applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Seafarers’ Retirement Fund Pty Ltd v Oppenhuis 

[1999] FCA 1683 at [14]. 

Part II. The Instrument to be Interpreted: Acts of Parliament 

Section 28. Types of Act 

Pages 189-190 Relevant Index entry: constitutional rights 

For the rights of aboriginal peoples see Kent McNeil, „Aboriginal Governments and the 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms‟, www.ohlj.ca/archive/articles/34_1_mcneil.pdf. 

Page 191 Relevant Index entry: tax law rewrite Acts 

In Grays Timber Products Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Scotland) [2010] UKSC 4 Lord Walker 

said (at [7]): „It is regrettable that ITEPA 2003, which came into force on 6 April 2003 and was 

intended to rewrite income tax law (as affecting employment and pensions) in plain English, 

was almost at once overtaken by massive amendments which are in anything but plain English‟ 

(see also [56]). 

Section 32. Overriding effect of an Act 


25



Page 198 Relevant Index entry: Act of Parliament:overriding effect of 

Rug analogy The Court of Appeal of New Zealand described this as putting the position 

„graphically‟ in Vector Limited & Anor v Transpower New Zealand Limited [1999] NZCA 167 

at [53]. 

Pages 198-200 Relevant Index entry: common law:abolition of common law rules by Act 

An example of the abolition of common law rules by statute is the abolition of the common law 

offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 

2008 ss 79, 149 and 153(2) and Sch 28: see FB‟s 2008 article at 

www.francisbennion.com/2008/021.htm. 

Section 33. Uniqueness of an Act 

Page 205 Relevant Index entry: Bill, parliamentary:legal status of 

As to preparatory acts by a government department in anticipation of the passing of a Bill see R 

(on the application of Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and another) v Secretary of 

State for Communities and Local Government (Shropshire County Council, interested party) 

[2008] EWCA Civ 148, [2008] 3 All ER 548. 

Section 34. Whether an Act binds the Crown: the doctrine of Crown immunity 

Pages 207-208 Relevant Index entry: Crown:ambit of concept 

See R (on the application of Bapio Action Ltd & Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home 

Department & Anor [2008] UKHL 27. 

Section 38. Royal assent (signification) 

Page 218 Relevant Index entry: Royal Assent:refusal of 

As to refusal or delay regarding assent (including the procedure in other countries) see Stabroek 

News (Guyana) 30 December 2008, www.stabroeknews.com/features/lightly-spoken-words. 

Section 45. Settling of text of Act and promulgation 

Pages 226-227 Relevant Index entry: Queen’s Printer 

In 2007 HMSO was acquired by Williams Lea, which operates in the private sector. 

Section 48. Nature of a prerogative instrument 

Pages 237-240 Relevant Index entry: prerogative instrument:nature of 

Not all prerogative instruments are legislative in nature. Thus the immigration rules „are not 

subordinate legislation but detailed statements by a minister of the Crown as to how the Crown 

proposes to exercise its executive power to control immigration. But they create legal rights . . 

.‟: Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 25, [2009] 3 All ER 

1061, per Lord Hoffmann at [6]. 

„It is true that a prerogative Order in Council is primary legislation in the sense that the 

legislative power of the Crown is original and not subordinate. It is classified as primary 

legislation for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998: see paragraph (f)(i) of the definition 

in section 21(1). That means that it cannot be overridden by Convention rights . . . But the fact 

that such Orders in Council in certain important respects resemble Acts of Parliament does not 

mean that they share all their characteristics. The principle of the sovereignty of Parliament . . . 

is founded upon the unique authority Parliament derives from its representative character. An 

exercise of the prerogative lacks this quality; although it may be legislative in character, it is 

still an exercise of power by the executive alone. (R (On The Application of Bancoult) v 


26



Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2008] UKHL 61, [2008] 3 WLR 

955, per Lord Hoffmann at [34]). 

A prerogative instrument may be made by a minister on his own authority, eg the Immigration 

Rules on which see Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 

308 at[17]-[19]. As to Code s. 48 see also BW, Re Judicial Review [2007] NICA 44 at [28]. 

Controversy exists over whether there is a „third power‟ which, apart from legislation and the 

prerogative, authorises state action: see Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and Anor v 

Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 148 at 

22-27, 43-71, 72-77, 78-81; F A R Bennion, „“Never On The Cards”: Fighting For Two-Tier 

Local Government‟, 173 CL&J (31 Jan 2009) pp 72-75, 

www.francisbennion.com/2009/005.htm, at paras 29, 30. 

Page 238 Relevant Index entry: act of state:nature of 

On the „act of state‟ principle see R (on the application of Hilali) v City of Westminster 

Magistrates’ Court [2008] EWHC 2892 (Admin), [2009] 1 All ER 834, at [43]-[47]. For the 

rule that municipal courts lack jurisdiction to entertain an action which is founded on an act of 

state, or which seeks to enforce the penal, fiscal or other public law of a foreign state, see 

United States Securities and Exchange Commission v Manterfield [2009] EWCA Civ 27, 

[2009] 2 All ER1009. 

Page 238 Relevant Index entry: pardon:power to grant 

As to footnote 2 see R (on the application of Shields) v Secretary of State for Justice [2008] 

EWHC 3102 (Admin) , [2009] 3 All ER 265. 

Part III. The Instrument to be Interpreted: Subordinate Legislation 

Section 50. Nature of delegated legislation 

Page 244 Relevant Index entry: delegated legislation:Act, conflict with 

Henry LJ applied the passage headed Must not conflict with law in Hyde Park Residence Ltd v 

Secretary For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 13 at [29]. 

Page 245 Relevant Index entry: delegated legislation:„as if in Act‟ 

(1) The first two sentences of the Comment on Code s 87 were followed in R (on the 

application of Secretary Of State For Home Department) v Burke [1998] EWHC Admin 913 at 

[4]. (2) The sentence referred to in footnote 5 on page 245 was acted on in R (on the application 

of Lightfoot) v Lord Chancellor [1998] EWHC Admin 827 (see [51]). 

Section 51. Parliamentary control of delegated legislation 

Pages 247-248 Relevant Index entry: legislation:primary and secondary [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] 

The words „since this has the effect of converting it into primary legislation‟ preceding 

Example 51.1 were cited to the ECtHR in Kafkaris v Cyprus [2008] ECHR 143 at para. 50. 

Section 58. Ultra vires delegated legislation 

Page 254 Relevant Index entry: ultra vires, doctrine of:delegated legislation, and 

The European Communities Act 1972 s 2(2) authorises the making of delegated legislation for 

the purpose of implementing any Community obligation of the United Kingdom etc. It would 

be ultra vires for such delegated legislation to go any wider than was required to implement the 


27



obligation in question: Oyarce v Cheshire County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 434, [2008] 4 All 

ER 907. 

Page 256 Relevant Index entry: Attorney General v Great Eastern Railway Co., rule in 

See Re Application by Local Government Auditor [2005] NIQB 52. 

Page 256 Relevant Index entry: consultation [New entry, not in fifth edition] 

Once a decision to carry out a statutory consultation is made „the consultation must be carried 

out properly . . . at a time when the proposals are still at a formative stage. Sufficient reasons 

must be given to allow those consulted to give intelligent consideration and an intelligent 

response. There must also be adequate time for such a response . . .‟: R (on the application of 

Boyejo & Ors) v Barnet London Borough Council [2009] EWHC 3261 (Admin) at [67]. 

Pages 258-259 Section 58(2) Relevant Index entry: severance:delegated legislation 

For an example of severance of a byelaw see Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence 

[2008] EWHC 416 (Admin). For an example of severance{ } of an Order in Council see A and 

others v HM Treasury [2008] EWCA Civ 1187, [2009] 2 All ER 747. 

Section 59. Delegated legislation: the rule of primary intention 

Pages 262-263 Relevant Index entry: delegated legislation:primary intention, rule of 

Code s 59 was applied in: R (on the application of Sarwar & Anor,) v Secretary Of State For 

Social Security [1996] EWCA Civ 801; HM Revenue & Customs v Dunwood Travel Ltd [2008] 

EWCA Civ 174; Clyde Francis Munnings v DW Smith [1987] FCA 281; 22 IR 254 at [9]; Re 

Aboriginal Development Commission [1988] FCA 160 at [37]. 

As to this rule see HM Revenue & Customs v Dunwood Travel Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 174 at 

[14], [15], [23]. 

Section 65. Types of delegated legislation: (5) byelaws 

Page 270 Relevant Index entry: byelaws:uncertainty, void for 

For an example of severance of a byelaw see Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence 

[2008] EWHC 416 (Admin). 

Section 66. Types of delegated legislation: (6) other instruments 

Page 272 Relevant Index entry: direction 

See N & Anor, Re Application for Judicial Review [2005] NIQB 75 at [8](2). 

Part IV. Commencement, Amendment and Repeal of Acts 

Section 78. Textual amendment 

Page 288-292 Relevant Index entry: amendment to Act:textual 

In Shields v Chief Commissioner of Police [2008] VSC 2 at [102]-[104] the Supreme Court of 

Victoria applied the sentence on p. 290 „However it is submitted that under modern practice the 

intention of Parliament when effecting textual amendment of an Act is usually to produce a 

revised text of the Act which is thereafter to be construed as a whole.‟ 

The passage on p. 291 headed Effect of amending Act was applied by the House of Lords in 

Medcalf v Weatherill and Another [2002] UKHL 27 at [20]. 


28



Section 81. Amendment by delegated legislation 

Page 294 Relevant Index entry: amendment to Act:delegated legislation, by 

Lord Bingham of Cornhill said that recognition of Parliament‟s primary law making role 

requires the narrow approach indicated on p. 294: R v Secretary of State for the Environment, 

Transport and the Regions, ex p Spath Holme Limited [2001] 2 AC 349 at 382. See also 

Traynor & Anor, Re Judicial Review [2007] ScotCS CSOH_78 at [8]. 

Section 82. Consequential amendment 

Pages 296-297 Relevant Index entry: amendment to Act:missed consequential [New entry, not in 


For an example of a missed consequential see Revenue and Customs Commissioners v Stringer 

and others [2009] UKHL 31, [2009] 4 All ER 1205, at [28]. 

Section 83. References to an amended enactment 

Page 298 Relevant Index entry: amendment to Act:reference to amended Act 

Code s 83 was discussed by the Federal Court of Australia in Austereo Limited v Trade 

Practices Commission [1993] FCA 301 at [39]. 

Section 85. Meaning of ‘repeal’ 

Page 300 Relevant Index entry: repeal:nature of 

Code s 85 has been approved in Australia: R v Abdul Haque Omarjee [1995] VSC 94 at [46]. 

Section 87. Implied repeal 

Page 304 Relevant Index entry: repeal:implied 

(1) The first two sentences of the Comment on Code s 87 were followed in R (on the 

application of Secretary Of State For Home Department) v Burke [1998] EWHC Admin 913 at 

[4]. (2) Regarding the sentence before Example 87.1 beginning „The possibility of implied 

repeal goes wider . . .‟ Buxton LJ said in relation to the reference to anomaly: „No authority is 

cited for the latter proposition and I am unable to act on it‟: O’Byrne v Secretary of State for 

Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [1996] EWCA Civ 499 at paragraph 26. In view of 

this dictum the reference to anomaly should be treated as withdrawn. 

Page 305 Relevant Index entry: repeal:implied 

The Court of Appeal followed what is said on p. 305 regarding the presumption against implied 

repeal in Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 175. 

Substitution To substitute a new provision for an existing provision is by implication expressly 

to repeal the existing provision: R v Abdul Haque Omarjee [1995] VSC 94 [Australia]. 

Section 88. Generalia specialibus non derogant 

Page 306 Relevant Index entry: generalia specialibus non derogant 

Henry LJ applied Code s 88 in Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Secretary For Environment, 

Transport & Regions & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 13 at [31]. See also Re McE, Re M , Re C and 

another [2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 4 All ER 335, at [98]. 

For a mistaken use of this maxim, corrected by the High Court of Australia, see Project Blue 

Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355; 153 ALR 490; 72 

ALJR 841, at [78]-[81]. 


29



Section 89. Savings on repeal 

Page 309 Relevant Index entry: saving:common law and 

For an observation by Young J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on the Comment 

relating to Code s 89(i) see Radin v Vekic Matter No 1891/97 [1997] NSWSC 234. 

Section 96. Transitional provisions on repeal, amendment etc 

Pages 314-315 Relevant Index entry: transitional provisions 

Code s 96 was approved by: (1) Buxton LJ in Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home 

Department [2008] EWCA Civ 308 at[17]; (2) McGuinness J in Quinlivan v Governor of 

Portlaoise Prison [1997] IEHC 181, [1998] 2 IR 113; (3) O‟Higgins J in Mullins v Harnett 

[1998] 4 IR 426. 

As to Code s 96(2) see: (1) R v Cartwright [2007] EWCA Crim 2581 esp. at [27] (where in 

error Code s 269 is referred to instead of Code s 96); (2) Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise 

Prison [1997] IEHC 181, [1998] 2 IR 113, at paras. 51, 52. 

Section 97. Presumption against retrospective operation 

Page 317 Relevant Index entry: retrospectivity:nature of 

The presumption does not apply to executive (as opposed to legislative) pronouncements: 

Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 25, [2009] 3 All ER 1061 

(Immigration Rules). As to the passage on p. 317 beginning „It is important to grasp the true 

nature‟ (including Example 97.3) see: (1) MM (Section 8: commencement) Iran [2005] UKAIT 

00115 at paras 13, 14, (2) Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v Dorset County Council 

[2007] EWHC 365 (Ch), [2007] 2 All ER 1000, at [31], [32] (confirmed [2008] EWCA Civ 

22). 

Page 319 Relevant Index entry: statutory interpretation:public good construction 

The opening sentences under this heading on page 319 were approved: (1) by McGuinness J 

(who also approved Code s 264) in Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1998] 2 IR 113; 

(2) by O‟Higgins J in Mullins v Harnett [1998] 4 IR 426. They were also referred to in 

Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1997] IEHC 181; [1998] 2 IR 113 at paras. 46, 47 

Section 98. Retrospective operation: procedural provisions 

Page 320 Relevant Index entry: retrospectivity:procedural provisions and 

Code s 98 was applied in Kensington International Ltd. v Republic of the Congo [2007] EWHC 

1632 (Comm) at [74]. 

The wording of Code s 98 was approved by Peart J in DPP v McDermott and Riordan (12 May 

2005, unreported: see David Dodd, Statutory Interpretation in Ireland (Tottel, 2008) p. 109). 

See also the view of New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in R v MJR [2002] NSWCCA 

129 at [17]. 

Part V. Extent and Application of Acts 

Section 103. The ‘extent’ of an Act 

Page 329Relevant Index entry: territorial extent of Act:basic rule 

Code s 103 was applied in Financial Times Ltd v Bishop [2003] UKEAT 0147_03_2511 at 

para. 61. In Serious Fraud Office v [2009] UKHL 17, [2009] 2 All ER 223, at [32] Lord 


30



Phillips of Worth Matravers referred to „the well-established canon of construction that requires 

clear language if an Act is to be given extra-territorial effect‟. 

Section 104. Uniform meaning throughout area of extent 

Page 330 Relevant Index entry: territorial extent of Act:uniform meaning throughout extent 

As to Code s. 104 see Davidson, Re Application For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 293, at 

[23]. 

Section 105. Composition of an enactment’s territory 

Page 335 Relevant Index entry: cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos [New entry, 

not in fifth edition] 

As to the application of this maxim see Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd and 

another [2008] EWHC 1756 (Ch), [20009] 1 All ER 517, at [47]-[57]. 

Section 106. Presumption of United Kingdom extent 

Pages 335-338 Relevant Index entry: territorial extent of Act:United Kingdom, presumption extent 

limited to 

This section of the Code was applied by Lord Mance in Masri v Consolidated Contractors 

International Co SAL and others [2009] UKHL 43, [2009] 4 All ER 847, at [10]. 

Section 128. General principles as to application 

Page 360n Relevant Index entry: application of Act:principles governing 

Add to the authorities cited in footnote 2 on p. 360: Serco Ltd. v Lawson [2004] EWCA Civ 12 

at paragraph 16; Faulkner & Ors v BT Northern Ireland & Ors [2005] NIIT 3933_01 (race 

discrimination provision extending only to Northern Ireland; can comparators in Great Britain 

be taken into account?); Holis Metal Industries Ltd v GMB & Anor [2007] UKEAT 

0171_07_1212 at 34; Transocean International Resources Ltd & Ors v Russell & Ors [2006] 

UKEAT 0074_05_0410 at paras 20, 26, 52, 54, 71, 72, 79 (application of regulations to 

continental shelf); Walker v New South Wales [1994] HCA 64 at [5] (claim that Australian Acts 

do not apply to Aborigines invalid); [1995] Aboriginal Law Bulletin 14, 

www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1995/14.html 

Page 362 Relevant Index entry: application of Act:principles governing 

„. . . the words “peace order and good government” have never been construed as words 

limiting the power of a legislature. Subject to the principle of territoriality implied in the 

words “of the Territory”, they have always been treated as apt to confer plenary law-making 

authority.‟ (R (On The Application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State For Foreign and 

Commonwealth Affairs [2008] UKHL 61, [2008] 3 WLR 955, per Lord Hoffmann at [50]). 

Section 129. Application to foreigners and foreign matters within the territory 

Page 366 Relevant Index entry: application of Act:foreign elements within the territory, and 

Mason CJ approved the sentence „As well as enjoying the benefits of domestic laws from 

which they are not expressly excluded, foreigners present in the country must also accept the 

burdens those laws impose‟: see [1995] Aboriginal Law Bulletin 14, 

www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1995/14.html. 


31



Section 131. Application to Britons and British matters outside the territory 

Pages 379-380 Relevant Index entry: application of Act:non-resident Britons, to 

Add the following to the enactments listed in the passage on pp. 379-380 beginning „Other 

criminal statutes dealing with offences overseas include‟: Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 

2008 s 72 (sex tourism). 

Section 133. Deemed location of an omission 

Page 387 Relevant Index entry: omission to act 

Code s 133 was considered by Sedley J in Kennet District Council v Young & Ors [1998] 

EWHC Admin 938 and by the Federal Court of Australia in Re Stephen Richard Luckins; Ex 

Parte: Columbia Pictures Industries & Anor [1996] FCA 567. 

Section 134. Deemed location of composite act or composite omission 

Pages 387-388 Relevant Index entry: composite act or omission 

Code s 134 was considered by Sedley J in Kennet District Council v Young & Ors [1998] 

EWHC Admin 938 

Part VI. The Enactment and the Facts 

Section 136. Applying the enactment to the facts 

Pages 393-394 Relevant Index entry: jury:function of 

„In this country trial by jury is a hallowed principle of the administration of criminal justice. It 

is properly described as a right . . . [It] is so deeply entrenched in our constitution that, unless 

express statutory language indicates otherwise, the highest possible forensic standard of proof 

is required to be established before the right is removed. That is the criminal standard.”: R v T 

and others [2009] EWCA Crim 1035, [2009] 3 All ER 1002 Per Judge LCJ at [10], [16].) 

Page 394 Relevant Index entry: assessor 

In the Comment on Code s 136, add to the note on p. 394 a reference to Mastercigars Direct 

Ltd v Withers LLP [2008] 3 All ER 417, [2007] EWHC 2733 (Ch), at [129], where Morgan J 

revealed that his assessors did not agree with parts of his decision. 

Page 394 Relevant Index entry: recusal 

A judge should not recuse himself from further proceedings in a case merely because a decision 

of his in the case has been reversed on appeal: Re B (children) (sexual abuse: standard of 

proof) [2008] UKHL 35, [2008] 4 All ER 1, at [81]. 

Section 139. Selective comminution 

Pages 401-404 Relevant Index entry: selective comminution:meaning of 

For a case where the trial Judge in effect put to the jury a selective comminution of the 

Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 s 5 see R v Ikram and another [2008] EWCA 

Crim 586, [2008] 4 All ER 253, at [62]. While retaining the essential statutory wording, the 

Judge „disentangled‟ the enactment so as to present it to the jury so far as possible in ordinary 

language. 

Section 142. Drafting presumed competent 


32



Page 414 Relevant Index entry: drafting error:presumption against 

As to the sentence before Example 142.2 see the further example in R v Murray & Anor [2006] 

NICA 33 (failure to include commencement provision). 

Section 144. The legal thrust 

Pages 422-423 Relevant Index entry: cause of action 

In the Comment on Code s 144, add to the passage on pp. 422-423 a reference to Legal Services 

Commission v Rasool [2008] 3 All ER 381, [2008] EWCA Civ 154, at [30] where Ward LJ said 

„a cause of action for a sum recoverable by virtue of an enactment accrues notwithstanding that 

it remains to be quantified‟. 

Section 145. Relevant and irrelevant facts 

Pages 423-427 Relevant Index entry: fact:relevant and irrelevant 

Relevance may fall to be determined by implication. Section 91(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 

1967 says: „any person who in any public place is guilty while drunk of disorderly behaviour, 

shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale‟. By 

implication this means that the defendant must be intoxicated by his own intention (i.e. that his 

drink is not spiked), and also that the disorderly behaviour must be intended. In the absence of 

evidence to the contrary both will be presumed. The terms drunk‟ and „disorderly‟ will be given 

their „ordinary and natural meaning‟.(See Carroll v Director of Public Prosecutions [2009] 

EWHC 554 (Admin). 

Section 146. Proof of relevant facts 

Page 427 Relevant Index entry: fact:proof of 

As to Code s 146(2) see Re B (children) (sexual abuse: standard of proof) [2008] UKHL 35, 

[2008] 4 All ER 1 at [2], [32] („He is not allowed to sit on the fence‟). 

Section 149. Opposing constructions of an enactment 

Page 434-435 Relevant Index entry: court: adversarial system 

For an extraordinary failure by prosecuting counsel to assist the court properly see Attorney 

General’s Reference (No 24 of 2008) [2008] EWCA Crim 2936, [2009] 3 All ER 839 at [50] 

(failure to mention Criminal Justice Act 2003 ss 269, 270). 

What is said here about the duty of advocates to assist the court in ascertaining the law cannot 

of course apply to litigants in person unless they happen to be legal experts. As to the parties 

dictating to the court on the law to be applied see Kay v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 

[2008] UKHL 69 at [74]. 

Division Two. The Legal Meaning of an Enactment 

Part VII. Grammatical and Strained Constructions 

Section 150. Nature of the legal meaning 

Pages 441-442 Relevant Index entry: legal meaning:nature of 

The first paragraph of the Comment was applied by the High Court of Australia in Project Blue 

Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355; 153 ALR 490; 72 


33



ALJR 841, at [78]-[81]. See also Red Roll Pty Ltd v Multiplex Latitude Retail Landowner Pty 

Ltd, Multiplex WS Retail Landowner Pty Ltd and AWPF Management Pty Ltd [2008] 

NSWADT 200 at [54]. 

Page 442 Relevant Index entry: presumptions of construction:Pointe Gourde rule 

On this rule see Transport for London (formerly London Underground Ltd) v Spirerose Ltd (in 

administration) [2009] UKHL 44, [2009] 4 All ER 810; Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK 

Onshore Ltd and another [2009] EWCA Civ 579, [2010] 1 All ER 26, at [104]-[107], [113]. 

Section 158. When strained construction needed 

Pages 458-463 Relevant Index entry: strained construction:reasons justifying 

Henry LJ applied Code s 158(a) (repugnancy) in Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Secretary For 

Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 13 at [34]. 

Code s 158 was applied by the Singapore High Court in Chang Mei Wah Selena and Others v 

Wiener Robert Lorenz and Others and Other Matters [2008] SGHC 97 at para. 20. This was 

upheld on appeal: see [2009] SGCA 7 at [49]-[51]. 

See entry for pp 971-979 s. 313 „absurdity‟ above. For an example of strained construction see 

the Australian case of Enfield v R [2008] NSWCCA 215 at [97]. 

Part VIII. Legislative Intention 

Section 163: Legislative intention as the paramount criterion 

Page 470 Relevant Index entry: counter-intuitive readings 

To the references to counter-intuitive readings at lines 3-4 and footnote 2, add: Giles v Rhind 

[2008] EWCA Civ 118, [2008] 3 All ER 697, at [17]. See also 5th edn page 1091 n3. 

Section 164. Is legislative intention fictitious? 

Page 472-474 Relevant Index entry: intention, legislative:fictitious, whether 

The Australian Justice Keith Mason said „Bennion is surely correct in describing [see p. 474] 

the suggestion that there can be no true intention behind an Act of Parliament as “antidemocratic”‟ 

(„Legislators‟ intent: how judges discern it and what they do if they find it‟ , 

IALS, 2 November 2006, 67). 

The Federal Court of Australia upheld the validity of Code s 164 in NAAV v Minister for 

Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228 at [432]-[433]. 

Section 166. The duplex approach to legislative intention 

Page 477 Relevant Index entry: intention, legislative:duplex approach to 

The Federal Court of Australia upheld the validity of Code s 166 in NAAV v Minister for 

Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228 at [432]-[433]. 

Section 167. Legislative intention and delegation to the court 

Page 479 Relevant Index entry: processing of enactments, dynamic: courts, by 


34



„, , , prescriptive reformulations of the legislative test [by the court] can be dangerous. This is 

partly because recasting the legislative test can lead to error, as it runs the inherent risk of 

unintentionally inventing a different test from that set out in the legislation. In addition, any 

reformulation can lead to problems not thrown up by the statutory wording, in which case it 

makes matters worse rather than better. Nonetheless, there are undoubtedly legislative 

provisions which, either because they are so obscure or because they must be given some sort 

of limitation which is not expressed, may well benefit from judicial exegesis, in order to decide 

whether, and if so how, they apply in the particular case, and also to assist in their application 

in future occasions.‟ (Smith v Northamptonshire County Council [2009] UKHL 27, per Lord 

Neuberger at [77], [78]). 

Section 171. Intention distinguished from motive 

Page 484 Relevant Index entry: political factors:enactment, behind 

With regard to the words preceding Example 171.1 see Schiemann LJ‟s comment that the 

Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 „clearly represents a compromise between a variety of 

commercial and political considerations‟: Dale Farm Dairy Group Ltd (t/a Northern Dairies) v 

Akram & Ors [1997] EWCA Civ 2125. 

Part IX. Filling in the Textual Detail 

Section 172. Nature of a legislative implication 

Pages 488-489 Relevant Index entry: ellipsis (the Relevant Index entry should not be italicised) 

As to the passage on pp. 488-489 see In re UK Waste Management[1999] NICA 2; [1999] NI 

183; at para. 24 and Electricity Supply Assoc of Australia Ltd v Australian Competition and 

Consumer Commission [2001] FCA 1296 at [102]. 

Section 173. Is it legitimate to draw implications? 

Pages 491-494 Relevant Index entry: implication:legitimacy of 

The Australian Judge Merkel J, citing Code s 173, said: „it has been long accepted that the legal 

meaning of an enactment includes what is necessarily or properly implied so as to give effect to 

the legislative intention gleaned from the language used (Chun Wang v Minister for 

Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 70). See also Re Application by the Local 

Government Auditor [2003] NIQB 21 at [11], [12]. The like ruling was made by the Court of 

Appeal of New Zealand in Frucor Beverages Limited v R T Fyers & Ors [2001] NZCA 109 at 

[36]. 

Section 174. When legislative implications are legitimate 

Page 494 Relevant Index entry: implication:legitimacy of 

In Shantha Karunaratna Jayasinghe v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs & Anor 

[1997] FCA 551 the Federal Court of Australia said: „The threshold of “necessity” has been 

rejected in favour of the formulation that the implication be “proper”. In Austereo Ltd v Trade 

Practices Commission (1993) 41 FCR 1 French and Beazley JJ accepted as a correct 

formulation the following passage in Bennion . . . „ (the FCA went on to cite the passage at 

Code p 495 beginning „The question of whether an implication should be found within the 

express words of an enactment depends . . .‟ and ending „Where the point is doubtful it will, as 

always in interpretation, call for a weighing and balancing of the relevant factors‟). See 


35



Director-General of Education v Suttling [1987] HCA 3; (1987) 162 CLR 427 at [8]; Re Ralph 

Phillip Sloane v the Minister of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1992] FCA 

414; (1992) 37 FCR 429 (1992) 28 ALD 480, at [32]; David John Beatty & Anor v Brashs Pty 

Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 128. And see Semunigus v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural 

Affairs [2000] FCA 240 at [109]; Burgess v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs 

[2000] FCA 926 at [13]-[17]. 

Page 497 Relevant Index entry: Attorney General v Great Eastern Railway Co., rule in 

See Re Application by Local Government Auditor [2005] NIQB 52. As to the Local 

Government Act 1972 s 111(1) see Brent London Borough Council v Risk Management 

Partners Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 490. As to the powers of local authorities see further dicta in 

that case regarding the Local Government Act 2000 s 2. 

Severance The rule was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Nguyen v Minister for 

Health & Ageing [2002] FCA 1241 at [65] to authorise severance of a licence granted to a 

group of pharmacists where one had misbehaved. 

Pages 498-499 Relevant Index entry: implication:limitation on express words, of 

In Aiden Shipping Co v Interbulk [1986] AC 965 at 981 Lord Goff said: 

„Courts of first instance are, I believe, well capable of exercising their discretion under [the 

Supreme Court Act 1981 s 51] in accordance with reason and justice. I cannot imagine any case 

arising in which some order for costs is made, in the exercise of the court‟s discretion, against 

some person who has no connection with the proceedings in question. If any problem arises, the 

Court of Appeal can lay down principles for the guidance of judges of first instance, or the 

Supreme Court Rule Committee can propose amendments of the Rules of the Supreme Court 

for the purpose of controlling the exercise of the statutory power vested in [a] judge subject to 

rules of court‟. 

On the above dictum see Dolphin Quays Development Ltd v Mills and others [2008] EWCA 

Civ 385, [2008] 4 All ER 56, at [3]. 

Section 175. When legislative implications affect related law 

Page 499 Relevant Index entry: implication:related law, affecting 

As to Code s. 175 see Davidson, Re Application For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 293, at 

[24]. 

Page 500 Relevant Index entry: implication:related law, affecting 

As to the passage headed Where courts follow statutory analogy see South Pacific Air Motive 

Pty Ltd & Anor v Kenneth Magnus & Ors [1998] FCA 1107. 

Section 176. Dynamic processing by the court (stare decisis) 

Page 502 Relevant Index entry: criminal procedure:sentencing 

The common law rule referred to in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 s 166(3)(b) (rule of law as to 

the totality of sentences) is an example of the further processing referred to by Donaldson J (as 

he then was) in the passage cited on p 502: see R v Raza [2009] EWCA Crim 1413; [2009] 

Crim LR 820. 

Section 177. Interstitial articulation (general) 

Page 504 Relevant Index entry: interstitial articulation:meaning of 


36



It should be noted that an interstitial articulation is not concerned with improving the drafting 

of the enactment in question. It keeps to the official wording except so far as is needed to 

express clearly the rival legal meanings. Defects in that wording, such as unnecessary 

repetition, should therefore be ignored. An interstitial articulation is directed solely to bringing 

out a possible operative legal meaning of the enactment. 

Section 179. Interstitial articulation by the court 

Page 505 Relevant Index entry: interstitial articulation:examples of 

Lord Bingham of Cornhill gave a striking example of interstitial articulation by the court when 

he spelt out a restrictive addition to the power of the Secretary of State under the Asylum and 

Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 s. 19(3)(b) (permission to marry): R (on 

the application of Baiai and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Nos 1 and 

2) [2008] UKHL 53, [2008] 3 All ER 1094, at [32]. For another example under the same Act 

see JT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] Civ 878, [2009] 2 All 

ER 1213, at [24]. 

Another example of interstitial articulation by the court is found in Perrin and another v 

Northampton Borough Council and others [2008] EWCA Civ 1353, [2008] 4 All ER 673, at 

[56]. 

Part X. Interpretative Criteria and Interpretative Factors 

Section 182. Strict and liberal construction 

Page 517 Relevant Index entry: strict and liberal construction 

The passage on mixed consequences at the foot of p. 517 was approved by O‟Higgins J in 

Mullins v Harnett [1998] 4 IR 426. 

Section 185. Interpretative factors all pointing one way 

Page 521 Relevant Index entry: interpretative factors:consistent result from, effect of 

Code s. 185 was applied in Nangles Nurseries v Commissioners of Valuation [2008] IEHC 73 

at para. 41. 

Division Three. Rules of Construction 

Part XI. Rules of Construction (General) 

Section 192. Nature of rules of construction 

Pages 543-544 Relevant Index entry: children:welfare of 

Since 2002 there has been a rule that a child, even one on the verge of adulthood, is considered 

and treated by Parliament as a vulnerable person to whom the state, in the form of the relevant 

local authority, owes a duty which goes wider than the mere provision of accommodation: see 

R (on the application of G) v London Borough of Southwark [2009] UKHL 26, [2009] 3 All ER 

189. 

Page 544 Relevant Index entry: legislation:remedial [New entry, not in fifth edition] 

It is sometimes suggested that there is a rule of construction relating to so-called remedial 

legislation. Thus in Du Toit v Minister for the Safety and Security of the Republic of South 


37



Africa And Another [2009] ZACC 22, 

http://41.208.61.234/uhtbin/cgisirsi/20090825152240/SIRSI/0/520/J-CCT91-08. Langa CJ says 

at [54]: „The applicant invoked the fact that the statute is remedial legislation, the purpose of 

which is to “express the values of the Constitution and to remedy the failure to respect such 

values in the past”. 34 He relied on Goedgelegen Tropical Fruits, where this Court held that the 

Constitution and remedial legislation “umbilically linked to the Constitution” ought to be 

interpreted in context and by offering a “generous construction over a merely technical or 

linguistic one”. 35 ‟ The footnote references are: 34 Department of Land Affairs and Others v 

Goedgelegen Tropical Fruits [2007] ZACC 12; 2007 (6) SA 199 (CC); 2007 (10) BCLR 1027 

(CC); at para 55. 35 Id at para 53. 

I have not mentioned this supposed rule of interpretation in my writings because it is not part of 

the common law. As Blackstone said (Commentaries i 86) all statutes that are not declaratory 

are remedial, so there is no special case to apply the supposed rule to. Furthermore it is 

unsatisfactory to contrast the suggested „generous‟ construction with one that is „merely 

technical or linguistic‟. These do not fall into any accepted categories. 

A similar rule to the South African one just mentioned is applied in Hong Kong: see HKSAR v 

Lam Kwong Wai and Another (2006) 9 HKCFAR 574. It seems that these rulings should be 

regarded as relevant only for countries governed by a written constitution. 

Section 193. Basic rule of statutory interpretation 

Page 544 Relevant Index entry: statutory interpretation:basic rule 

The wording of Code s 193 was approved by the Supreme Court of Ireland in Maguire v DPP 

[2004] IESC 53. 

Page 545 Relevant Index entry: statutory interpretation:basic rule 

This page was relied on by the Barbados High Court in Cable and Wireless (Barbados) Ltd. v 

Fair Trading Commission and others (No. 1970 of 2003) at [36]-[37]. 

Section 195. The plain meaning rule 

Page 549 Relevant Index entry: plain meaning rule:meaning of 

The quotation from Halsbury’s Laws on this page was cited in R (on the application of D & M) 

v Secretary of State for Work & Pensions [2010] EWCA Civ 18 at [47]. For footnote 3 relating 

to this passage (which is erroneous) substitute: „4th edn, Vol 44 (1983), para 863‟. 

Section 197. The commonsense construction rule 

Page 551-558 Relevant Index entry: commonsense construction rule:nature of 

The wording of Code s 197 was approved: (1) by McGuinness J in Quinlivan v Governor of 

Portlaoise Prison [1998] 2 IR 113; (2) by O‟Higgins J in Mullins v Harnett [1998] 4 IR 426; 

(3) by Kearns J in Lawlor v Mr Justice Flood [1999] 3 IR 107. See also Billig, Re Application 

for Judicial Review [2006] ScotCS CSOH_148 at [35] (para xvi of Respondent‟s submissions). 

Dies non Where a period ends in a dies non it is common sense to treat it as extended to include 

the next dies utilis or working day: see Mucelli v Government of the Republic of Albania [2009] 

UKHL 2, [2009] 3 All ER 1035, at [84]. 

See Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1997] IEHC 181; [1998] 2 IR 113 at paras. 48, 

49. 


38



Pages 555-556 Relevant Index entry: greater includes less 

This principle was applied by the Supreme Court of New South Wales in ASIC v Oliver 

Banovec (No. 2) [2007] NSWSC 961 at [28]. 

Section 198. The rule ut res magis valeat quam pereat 

Page 558 Relevant Index entry: res magis valeat quam pereat 

Code s 198 was applied by the High Court of Malawi in its ruling on the Malawi 1999 

Presidential Election in Re Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Act 1993, 

www.sdnp.org.mw/elect99/mainstory.html (1999). 

Part XII Rules of Construction Laid Down by Statute 

Section 199. Statutory definitions 

Pages 562-564 Relevant Index entry: definition, statutory:potency of term defined 

See Optos Plc v Revenue & Customs [2006] UKSPC SPC00560 at para. 127. 

This principle was applied by the House of Lords in R (on the application of Heffernan) v Rent 

Service [2008] UKHL 58, [2009] 1 All ER 173 at [74] („locality‟); It was applied by the 

Industrial Relations Court of Australia in Western Newspapers Pty Ltd v Chrisyian Warren 

[1994] IRCA 122 („associated‟) and Hawkins and Anor v Commonwealth Bank of Australia 

[1996] IRCA 236 („redundancy‟). It was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Minister 

for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Ye Hu [1997] FCA 1197 („usual occupation‟). It 

was applied by the New South Wales Appeal Court in Repatriation Commission v Vietnam 

Veterans’ Association of Australia NSW Branch Inc & Ors [2000] NSWCA 65 at [104] („sound 

medical-scientific evidence‟) and Manly Council v Malouf [2004] NSWCA 299 at [8] („shop‟). 

Page 565 Relevant Index entry: definition, statutory:substantive effect, having 

The passage in the middle of Code p 565 was applied by the Court of Appeal of the Northern 

Territory of Australia in Michael Munn v Agus & Anor (1997) 6 NTLR 84, [1997] NTSC 3, at 

[33]. 

Pages 569-570 Relevant Index entry: statutory interpretation:contrary intention [New entry, not in 


For a discussion of the principles involved in deciding on contrary interpretation (Code s 

199(4)) see Re Dairy Framers of Great Britain Ltd [2009] EWHC 1389 (Ch), [2009] 4 All ER 

241. 

In Re Interchase Corporation Limited (In Liquidation) and Sections 460 and 461 of the 

Corporations Law the Application of Gregory Paul Kelly and Richard Anthony Barber 

(Liquidators of Interchase Corporation Limited) [1993] FCA 595 at [27] the Federal Court of 

Australia applied Code s 199(4) where the contrary intention was not mentioned. 

Page 570 Relevant Index entry: definition, statutory:clarifying 

The dictum from IRC v Parker was applied in Health Service Executive -v- Commissioner for 

Valuation [2008] IEHC 178 at para. 9. 

Page 572 Relevant Index entry: definition, statutory:referential 

As to the passage on referential definitions on Code p. 572 see Elizabeth Court (Bournemouth) 

Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKSPC SPC00648. See also (in this table) the entry relating 

to incorporation by reference. 

Pages 573-574 Relevant Index entry: definition, statutory:enlarging 


39



Citing Code s 199, the Chancellor of the High Court referred in Revenue & Customs v Premier 

Foods Ltd. [2007] EWHC 3134 (Ch) at [18] to „the well recognised canon of construction that 

an enlarging definition does not normally affect the width of the term being enlarged‟. 

In Moweno Pty Ltd v Stratis Promotions Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 376 at [61] a definition in the 

form „means and includes‟ was classified as an enlarging definition. 

An example of an enlarging definition (see pp 573-574) which gives an unexpected meaning 

for a term is provided by the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 s 6(1). This bleakly says „Girl 

includes woman‟. The practice dealt with by the Act is commonly inflicted on girls around the 

age of seven, so the drafter uses „girl‟ rather than „woman‟ throughout the Act. This overlooks 

the potency of the term defined (see pp 562-564), which could give the defence an argument if 

the victim were a woman of advanced years. 

Section 200. The Interpretation Act 1978 

Page 576 Relevant Index entry: Interpretation Act 1978:general 

Commenting on the sentence on p. 576 „An Interpretation Act does not operate in such a way as 

to change the essential effect of an enactment to which it applies.‟ David Dodd says in 

Statutory Interpretation in Ireland (Tottel, 2008) p. 254: „That holds weight in respect of 

Interpretation Acts where the purpose is to collect generally applicable definitions and terms. 

Provisions of the [Irish] Interpretation Act 2005, however, go much further than this 

“traditional” function of Interpretation Acts.‟ 

Page 576 Relevant Index entry: unincorporated association 

As to unincorporated associations see generally R v L and another [2008] EWCA Crim 1970, 

[2009] 1 All ER 786. 

Page 579 Relevant Index entry: person 

As to the reference to a corpse in line 3, see Yearworth and others v North Bristol NHS Trust 

[2009] EWCA Civ 37, [2009] 2 All ER 986 (parts etc of a human body). 

Pages 579-581 Relevant Index entry: singular and plural 

For a detailed discussion on when the contrary intention appears see Cranston J in East Devon 

District Council v Electoral Commission (The Boundary Committee for England) [2009] 

EWHC 4 (Admin) at [35]-[40] and F A R Bennion, „“Never On The Cards”: Fighting For Two- 

Tier Local Government‟, 173 CL&J (31 Jan 2009) pp 72-75, 

www.francisbennion.com/2009/005.htm at paras 15-23. 

For a discussion by the Supreme Court of Queensland of when the singular includes the plural 

see C & E P/L v CMC Brisbane P/L (Administrators Appointed) [2004] QCA 60 at [18]-[22]. 

Part XIII. The Informed Interpretation Rule (General) 

Section 201. Statement of the rule 

Pages 585-588 Relevant Index entry: informed interpretation:rule 

Code s. 201 was applied in Johnston Publishing (North) Ltd & Ors v Revenue & Customs 

[2006] UKSPC SPC00564 at [74]; Etame v Secretary of State for the Home Department & 

Anor [2008] EWHC 1140 (Admin) at [53]. See also David Dodd, Statutory Interpretation in 

Ireland (Tottel, 2008) pp. 206-207 (n. 9). 

Page 587 Relevant Index entry: fact:ascertainment of 

Where a statutory function is exercisable only if a certain fact exists, it is for the person 

exercising the function to judge whether or not the fact exists, „subject to the scrutiny of the 


40



courts on the ordinary principles of judicial review‟ (R (on the application of A) v London 

Borough of Croydon [2009] UKSC 8, per Lady Hale at [23]). „But the question whether a 

person is a "child" is a different kind of question. There is a right or a wrong answer . . . [It is a 

question] for the courts rather than for other kinds of decision makers.‟ (Ibid at [27]) 

Section 202 The ‘context’ of an enactment 

Pages 588-590 Relevant Index entry: informed interpretation:context 

As Lord Steyn said „in law, context is everything‟: see JF & Anor (on the application of R) v 

Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 792 at [47]. 

Section 205. Interpreter’s need for legal knowledge 

Page 593 Relevant Index entry: interpreter of enactment:legal knowledge, need for 

Code s 205 was applied by the High Court of New Zealand in Transpower New Zealand 

Limited v Taupo District Council [2007] NZHC 999 at [13] and in Avowal Administrative 

Attorneys Limited and Ors v The District Court at North Shore and Anor [2007] NZHC 714 at 

[7]. 

Section 210. The pre-Act law 

Pages 599-604 Section 210(3) Relevant Index entry: Barras principle 

The Barras principle as explained here was applied in BBC Scotland v Souster [2001] IRLR 

150, [2000] ScotCS 308, at [28]. 

For an application of the Barras principle where Parliament had „adopted‟ an erroneous 

decision see A v Hoare and other appeals [2008] UKHL 6, [2008] 2 All ER 1, at [15]; R (on the 

application of Etame) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another [2008] 

EWHC 1140 (Admin) , at [53]. 

Page 599 Relevant Index entry: pre-Act law, the [New entry, not in fifth edition] 

Code s 210 was followed by Peter Gibson LJ in Ward v Chief Adjudication Officer [1998] 

EWCA Civ 1552. 

Page 601 Section 210(3) Relevant Index entry: Barras principle 

The dictum at the top of this page was applied by the High Court of New Zealand in 

Commissioner of Inland Revenue v N Evans [2008] NZHC 1017 at [34]; 

Pages 603-604 Section 210(3) Relevant Index entry: in pari materia, Acts 

The words „if two Acts are in pari materia it will be assumed that universality of language and 

meaning was intended‟ (see p. 603) were approved by Costello P. in Action Aid Ltd v Revenue 

Commissioners [1997] IEHC 196. 

This discussion was described as „illuminating‟ by Cranston J in R (on the application of 

Mahamed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 1312 (Admin) at [27]. 

See also DPP v Power [2007] IESC 31. 

Section 211. Consolidation Acts 

Page 606 Relevant Index entry: legislative history:consolidation Acts and 

The passage beginning „It does not import parliamentary approval of judicial decisions‟ was 

followed in The Staff Side of the Police Negotiating Board & Anor v Secretary of State for the 

Home Department [2008] EWHC 1173 (Admin) at [44]. 


41



Pages 606-607 Relevant Index entry: consolidation Act:Acts consolidating with amendments 

For an interesting historical account see Isle of Anglesey Council and another v Welsh Ministers 

and others [2009] EWCA Civ 94, [2009] 3 All ER 1110, at [39]-[50]. 

Section 213. Meaning of enacting history 

Page 610 Relevant Index entry: government department:Act, in charge of 

As to preparatory acts by a government department in anticipation of the passing of a Bill see R 

(on the application of Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and another) v Secretary of 

State for Communities and Local Government (Shropshire County Council, interested party) 

[2008] EWCA Civ 148, [2008] 3 All ER 548. 

Section 217. Use of Hansard 

Page 616 Section 217(7) Relevant Index entry: estoppel:executive 

For an approving comment by Sinha J of the Indian Supreme Court on the article by FB from 

which Code s 217(7) is derived see R & B Fallon Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax 

(Appeal (civil) 3326 of 2008) at para. 25. 

Pages 620-621 Relevant Index entry: Pepper v Hart, rule in:judicial application of 

Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury: „. . . I do not think this is one of those rare cases where 

recourse to ministerial statements is appropriate‟. As an example of 2008 practice see the whole 

of this dictum in Lewisham London Borough Council v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43, [2008] 4 

All ER 525, at [154]. 

Pages 632-633 Relevant Index entry: Pepper v Hart, rule in:retreat from [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] 

See Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and others v Bedfordshire Police Authority [2008] EWHC 

2207 (Comm), at [155]. 

Section 220. Special restriction on parliamentary materials (the exclusionary rule) 

Pages 645-652 Relevant Index entry: exclusionary rule, the:reasons for 

For an important case concluding that in Ireland as a matter of judicial policy no sufficient 

grounds have been established for abolishing or qualifying the established exclusionary rule 

concerning recourse to parliamentary proceedings see Crilly v T. & J. Farrington Ltd. [2001] 

IESC 60; [2002] 1 ILRM 161. 

Pages 680-682 Relevant Index entry: exclusionary rule, the:control of its procedure by court and 

Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ referred to „a body of material drawn to our attention 

which was not strictly admissible as an aid to statutory construction‟: R v Zafar and others 

[2008] EWCA Crim 184, [2008] 4 All ER 46, at [31]. 

Section 221. Use of international treaties 

Pages 682-685 Relevant Index entry: Treaty:status of 

For an example of an enactment falling within Code s 221(1)(a) see the Patents Act 1977 s 

130(7) and Generics (UK) Ltd and others v H Lundbeck A/S [2009] UKHL 12, [2009] 2 All 

ER, at [68]. 

Pages 682-685 Relevant Index entry: treaty:interpretation of 

„The starting point for the interpretation of international conventions is to consider the natural 

meaning of the language of the provision in question. But it is necessary to consider the 


42



convention as a whole and give it a purposive interpretation. The language of an international 

convention should be interpreted unconstrained by technical rules of English law, or by English 

legal precedent, but on broad principles of general acceptation. The court may have regard to 

the decisions of foreign courts on the convention and the prevailing current of foreign opinion 

on its application . . . (Hatzl & Anor v XL Insurance Company Ltd [2009] EWCA Civ 223, 

[2009] 3 All ER 617, at [33]. 

An Act of Parliament may operate on the interpretation of a treaty. The Immigration, Asylum 

and Natonality Act 2006 s 54(1) says that in the construction and application of art 1(F)(c) of 

the the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 (Cmd 

9171) the reference to acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations shall 

be taken as including, in particular, specified acts. As to this see MH (Syria) v Secretary of 

State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 226, [2009] 3 All ER 564, which mentions 

„international criminal law‟ and „international humanitarian law‟ (see [30]) and refers at [39] to 

„the special position of nursing under international humanitarian law‟ On the interpretation of 

art 1(F)(a), which says that the Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom 

„there are serious reasons for considering that he has committed a crime against peace, a war 

crime, or a crime against humanity, as defined in the international instruments drawn up to 

make provision in respect of such crimes‟, see R (on the application of) JS (Sri Lanka)) v 

Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 364, [2009] 3 All ER 588. 

Page 684 Relevant Index entry: treaty:interpretation of 

The passage regarding the drafting of treaties was cited by the High Court of Australia in A v 

Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1997] HCA 4; (1997) 190 CLR 225; (1997) 142 

ALR 331 (see footnote 85). 

Section 231. The basic rule 

Page 702 Relevant Index entry: contemporanea expositio 

Code s 231 was cited in Sharratt v London Central Bus Co [2002] EWHC 9006 (Costs) at [46]- 

[49]. See also Scottish & Newcastle Plc v Raguz [2008] UKHL 65 at [28]. 

Section 232. Use of official statements on meaning of Act 

Pages 702-706 Relevant Index entry: government department:guidelines issued by 

Code s 232 was followed in Brent London Borough Council v Risk Management Partners Ltd [2009] 

EWCA Civ 490 at [110], [227], where the Court of Appeal stressed the limitations on the 

doctrine. Their remarks indicate that it is likely to be more effective for official guidance to be 

embodied where possible in a preamble or purpose clause rather than an explanatory note, thus 

making it part of the Act. See also Grays Timber Products Ltd v Revenue and Customs 

(Scotland) [2010] UKSC 4 at 54], [55]. 

„Statutory construction remains a matter for the courts, not for Departmental Guidance. If the 

court considers that the Guidance is a misstatement or misapplication of what Parliament has 

enacted, then it must say so‟: Boyle v SCA Packaging Ltd [2009] UKHL 37, [2009] 4 All ER 

1181, at [67], per Baroness Hale. 

As to incorrect guidelines see further R (on the application of Bapio Action Ltd & Anor) v 

Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2008] UKHL 27. 

Section 233. Use of delegated legislation made under Act 

Pages 706-708 Relevant Index entry: statutory interpretation:delegated legislation, by reference to 


43



See the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Smith v Zinifex Australia Limited [2008] 

FCA 532. See also Code p. 242 n. 8. 

Code s 233 was applied by Lord Scott of Foscote in Scottish & Newcastle plc v Raguz [2008] 

UKHL 65, [2009] 1 All ER 763, at [28]. 

Section 234. Use of later Acts in pari materia 

Pages 708-710 Relevant Index entry: in pari materia, Acts 

Code s 234 was followed by Peter Gibson LJ in Ward v Chief Adjudication Officer [1998] 

EWCA Civ 1552. See also Halcyon Films LLP v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKSPC 

SPC00696 at para. 83. 

Page 709 Relevant Index entry: mistake of law:Parliament, by 

On the passage „except when legislating, Parliament has no power authoritatively to interpret 

the law‟ see Hawkesbury City Council & v Sammut [2002] NSWCA 18 at [71]. 

The passage „the view taken by Parliament as to the legal meaning of a doubtful enactment may 

be treated as of persuasive, though not binding, authority‟ was adopted by the Federal Court of 

Australia in Re Michael Franciscus Kalwy v the Secretary of the Department of Social Security 

[1992] FCA 489; (1992) 16 Aar 403 (1992) 38 FCR 295 (1992) 29 ALD 28, at [23]. 

Section 235. Use of judicial decisions on Act 

Page 710 Relevant Index entry: sub-rules 

Code s. 235 was applied in F. v Minister for Health and Children [2008] IESC 16. 

Page 711 Relevant Index entry: tacit legislation 

On this discussion of tacit legislation see the Hong Kong case of Kao Lee & Yip (a firm) v Lau 

Wing & Anor [2008] HKCU 1667 at [35], [36], 

http://law.lexisnexis.com/webcenters/hk/Daily-Cases/Kao-Lee--Yip-a-firm-v-Lau-Wing--Anor 

Part XV. The Functional Construction Rule 

Section 238. Statement of the rule 

Page 716 Relevant Index entry: functional construction: delegated legislation and 

The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs takes the view that headings are a part 

of a statutory instrument and are a legitimate aid to its interpretation, see Joint Committee on 

Statutory Instruments Sixth Report, 10 December 2007, . 

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtstatin/35/3502.htm 

Section 242. The proviso 

Page 723 Relevant Index entry: tacit legislation:proviso, nature of 

The wording of Code s 242 was approved by Laffoy J in Comptroller and Auditor General v 

Ireland [1997] 1 IR 248. 

Section 245. The long title 

Page 727 Relevant Index entry: long title:interpretative use of 

See David Dodd, Statutory Interpretation in Ireland (Tottel, 2008) p. 46. 


44



Section 247. The purpose clause 734 

Page 734-735 Relevant Index entry: purpose clause: nature of 

„The 2008 edition of the renowned Bennion on Statutory Interpretation tells us that a purpose 

clause is “An express statement of the legislative intention”. It goes on to say: “It may apply to 

the whole or part of an Act” - Lord Skelmersdale, HL Deb 17 Jun 2008, col 921. 

Section 250. Examples 

Pages 739-741 Relevant Index entry: examples:primary legislation in 

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 s 44 (6) says „The following are examples of cases where there 

may be evidence of a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place . . .‟ On the 

examples then given see R v T and others [2009] EWCA Crim 1035, [2009] 3 All ER 1002, at 

[18]. 

Section 255. Heading 

Page 745 Relevant Index entry: heading:interpretation by reference to 

Code s 255 was applied in ETI Euro Telecom International NV v Republic of Bolivia & Anor 

[2008] EWCA Civ 880 at [70]. 

Page 746 Relevant Index entry: heading:interpretation by reference to 

The following sentence was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Grundfos Pumps Pty 

Ltd v Collector of Customs [1997] FCA 234: „Any heading can only be an approximation, and 

may not cover all the detailed matters falling within the provision to which it is attached.‟ 

Section 256. Section name (sidenote, heading or title) 

Page 747 Relevant Index entry: Section name (sidenote, heading or title): interpretation by 

reference to 

Code s 256 was followed by Simon Brown LJ in R (on the application of Perry & Anor v 

Secretary Of State For Social Security & Anor [1998] EWCA Civ 1117. See also Re 

Application by the Local Government Auditor [2003] NIQB 21 at [16]. 

Section 257. Format 

Page 749 Relevant Index entry: Act of Parliament:format [New entry, not in fifth edition] 

Code s 257 was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Re Australian Securities 

Commission v Neil Lucas [1992] FCA 234; (1992) 7 Ascr 676 (1992) 108 ALR 521 (1992) 36 

FCR 165 (1992) 27 ALD 67, at [18]. 

Section 258. Punctuation 

Page 751 Relevant Index entry: punctuation:interpretation by reference to 

The first sentence of the Comment was cited by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital 

Territory in Director of Public Prosecutions v Eastman and Ors [2002] ACTSC 35 at [41] and 

by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand in Official Bay Heritage Protection Society 

Incorporated v Auckland City Council and another [2007] NZCA 511 at [33]. 

Section 259. Nature of incorporation by reference 


45



Page 758 Relevant Index entry: incorporation by reference:nature of 

Code s 259 was applied by the High Court of Fiji in Naduaniwai v Commander, Republic of 

Fiji Military Forces [2004] FJHC 8; Hbm0032.2004. 

As to Code s. 259 see also Elizabeth Court (Bournemouth) Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2007] 

UKSPC SPC00648. See also (in this table) the entry relating to definition, statutory, referential. 

Section 260. Archival drafting 

Pages 759-761 Relevant Index entry: incorporation by reference:archival drafting 

With regard to Code s 260(2), there may be a contrary intention disapplying „freezing‟ in the 

case of an Act applying a body of law for constitutional purposes. See eg Chamberlains v Lai 

[2006] NZSC 70 at [86] (application of English law in New Zealand). 

Division Four. Interpretative Principles Derived from Legal Policy 

Part XVI. Interpretative Principles (General) 

Section 263. Nature of legal policy 

Page 769 Relevant Index entry: legal policy:nature of 

The passage beginning „No Act can convey . . .‟ was applied by the Court of Appeal of New 

Zealand to relations between courts and Parliament in Huata v Prebble & Anor [2004] NZCA 

147 at [147]. 

Page 769-786 Relevant Index entry: legal policy:nature of 

A particular principle of legal policy may form part of some branch of the law, eg the law of 

defamation: see Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 432, [2008] 3 All ER 

923, at [80]. 

For a valuable survey of the place of legal policy (otherwise public policy) in the development 

of the common law see Judicial Activism: Authority, Principle and Policy in the Judicial 

Method by The Hon. Justice Michael Kirby, Justice of the High Court of Australia (55 th 

Hamlyn Lectures, Sweet & Maxwell, 2004), pp. 13-43. 

Pages 777-778 Relevant Index entry: champerty 

The law of champerty was modified by the Criminal Law Act 1967 ss 14, 15. It may still render 

a contract unlawful where it interferes with statutory duties, eg of a liquidator: Ruttle Plant Ltd 

v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (No 2) [2008] EWHC 238 (TCC), 

[2009] 1 All ER 448. 

Section 264. Law should serve the public interest 

Pages 792-795 Relevant Index entry: illegality:in bonam partem (in good faith) construction 

This was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Mark Anthony Coleman and Director of 

Public Prosecutions v Kevin James Gray [1994] FCA 1585 at [38]-[40]. 

Page 793 Relevant Index entry: illegality:fraud 

The term „fraud‟ may be used in the common law sense or the equitable sense of 

„unconscionable‟: see Giles v Rhind [2008] EWCA Civ 118, [2008] 3 All ER 697, at [44]. 

Section 265. Law should be just and fair 

Page 795-799 Relevant Index entry: justice:law should serve 


46



As to Code s. 265 see Martin, Application for judicial review [2000] NIQB 8 at para. 20. 

Page 795-799 Relevant Index entry: justice: miscarriage of [New entry, not in fifth edition] 

It may not be possible for the court to remedy a miscarriage of justice if it involves disturbing 

an act in law (such as an adoption order) which it is contrary to public policy to upset (see Re 

Webster (children) [2009] EWCA Civ 59, [2009] 2 All ER 1156). 

Page 798 Relevant Index entry: state:fairness by [New entry, not in fifth edition] 

As to lines 4-6 see Donaldson v O’Sullivan (Official Receiver intervening) [2008] EWCA Civ 

879, [2009] 1 All ER 1087, at [36], [37]. 

Section 266. Law should be certain and predictable 

Page 804 Relevant Index entry: user of legislation 

This topic is further dealt with in FB‟s 2008 article „Is Law Still A Learned Profession?‟, 

www.francisbennion.com/2008/016.htm. 

Section 267. Law should not operate retrospectively 

Page 807 Relevant Index entry: retrospectivity:presumption against 

Code s 267 was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Insurance and Superannuation 

Commissioner v Wayne Cyril Hiscock [1995] FCA 1510 at [8]. 

Section 268. Law should be coherent and self-consistent 

Page 808 Relevant Index entry: legal policy:law should be consistent 

Code s 268 was applied by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor 

[2008] SGCA 20 at [93]-[94]. 

Section 269. Law should not be subject to casual change 

Pages 812-816 Relevant Index entry: legal policy:law should not be changed casually 

It is to be assumed that Parliament intended the most continuity with the pre-existing law: Re P 

[2009] EWHC 163 (Ch), [2009] 2 All ER 1198, at [34]. 

Pages 814-816 Relevant Index entry: common law:presumption as to statutory alteration of 

For the Federal Court of Australia‟s views see Re Commissioner of Taxation; Deputy 

Commissioner of Taxation (Melbourne); Douglas Franklin Booth; Norman Rosenbaum and 

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Sydney) v Citibank Limited [1989] FCA 126 at [25]. 

Section 270. Municipal law should conform to international law 

Pages 822-823 Relevant Index entry: legality, principle of (constitutional rights) 

For the application of this principle in relation to the United Nations Act 1946 s 1 see A and 

others v HM Treasury [2009] 2 All ER 747, [2008] EWCA Civ 1187, at [43]-[46]. For its 

application in relation to the Terrorism Act 2000 s 58 see R v K [2008] EWCA Crim 185, 

[2008] 3 All ER 525, at [16]. For its application in relation to the Regulation of Emergency 

Powers Act 2000 ss 27, 28 see Re McE, Re M , Re C and another [2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 4 All 

ER 335. For its application in relation to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 s 

85 see AS (Somalia) and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] UKHL 

32, [2009] 4 All ER 711 at [17]. 

For its application in relation to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) 

Act 2004 s 8 see JT (Cameroon) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] Civ 878, 

[2009] 2 All ER 1213. 


47



The first complete paragraph at the top of page 823 was applied by the Supreme Court of New 

Zealand in Lisa Cropp v A Judicial Committee and Bryan McKenzie [2008] NZSC 46 at [26]. 

Part XVII. Principle against doubtful penalisation 

Section 271. Principle against penalisation under a doubtful law 

Page 825 Relevant Index entry: doubtful penalisation, principle against 

In R v T [2008] EWCA Crim 815 at 4, Latham LJ referred to „the well-known passages in 

Bennion Part XVII entitled The Principle Against Doubtful Penalisation‟. 

The principle against doubtful penalisation was relied on in Perrin and another v Northampton 

Borough Council and others [2008] EWCA Civ 1353, [2008] 4 All ER 673, at [34]. 

Code s 271 was applied to delegated legislation by the Federal Court of Australia in Hanna v 

Migration Agents Registration Authority [1999] FCA 1657 at [22], [23]. 

The principle against doubtful penalisation was discussed in Gordon, Re Application for 

Judicial Review [2006] NIQB 20 at [21]. 

Page 826 Relevant Index entry: doubtful penalisation, principle against:nature of 

To the authorities listed in footnote 3 on page 826 add: Revenue & Customs v Walsh [2005] 

EWCA Civ 1291 at [10]; Crofts & Ors v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 

599 at [22]; AG’s Reference 004/2003 under s 36 of Criminal Justice Act 1988 v Suchedina 

[2004] EWCA Crim 1944, [2005] 1 WLR 1574, at [12]. 

Page 828 Relevant Index entry: doubtful penalisation, principle against:nature of 

As to the passage at the beginning of p. 828 see Re An Application for Judicial Review, 

Landlords Association for Northern Ireland [2005] NIQB 22 at [46]. The passage headed 

Where other factors are stronger was followed in Council for the Regulation of Health Care 

Professionals v General Medical Council & Anor [2004] EWHC 527 (Admin) at [39]. Another 

relevant authority is Bowers v Gloucester Corporation [1963] 1 QB 881 at 886-887, where 

Lord Parker CJ referred to „having applied “all the canons of interpretation”„. 

Pages 828-829 Relevant Index entry: legal policy:property rights and 

For an Australian case where the principle of no deprivation without compensation was 

disapplied by clear words see Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning 

Commission [2004] WASCA 149 at [296]. 

Section 273. Statutory restraint of the person 

Page 836 Relevant Index entry: doubtful penalisation, principle against:physical restraint of the 

person 

Sir Igor Judge P: „The starting point is the hallowed principle that each and every detention 

must be justified by clear, unequivocal, legal authority‟: R (on the application of G) v Chief 

Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2008] EWCA Civ 28, [2008] 4 All ER 594, at [29]. 

Page 837 Relevant Index entry: habeas corpus 

„Scott Baker LJ said that it would require the strongest words . . . to remove the ancient remedy 

of habeas corpus . . .‟: per Lord Hope of Craighead in Re Hilali [2008] UKHL 3, [2008] 2 All 

ER 207, at [21]. Nevertheless that case decided that, as respects extradition decisions against 

which there is a right of appeal under the Extradition Act 2003 (European arrest warrant), 

habeas corpus is excluded by the clear and unequivocal wording of s. 34. Baroness Hale of 

Richmond said at [32]: „For better or worse we have committed ourselves to this system and it 

is up to us to make it work‟. 


48



Section 278. Statutory interference with economic interests 

Page 846 Relevant Index entry: legal policy:property rights, and 

Code s 278 was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Re Centronics Systems Pty Ltd; 

Maurice Latin; Tiberio Salice and Fabrizio Latin v Nintendo Company Ltd [1992] FCA 584; 

(1992) 111 ALR 13 (1992) 24 IPR 481 (1992) 39 FCR 147, at [81]. It was considered by the 

Federal Court of Australia in Re Registrar of Liquor Licences v Peter Iliadis; John Iliadis; 

Yfigenia Iliadis; Ilias Spyridopoulos and Despina Spyridopoulos [1988] FCA 328 at [13]. 

Page 848 Relevant Index entry: legal policy:property rights, and 

This principle was described by Walker J as „well-established‟ in The Independent Committee 

for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services v Andronikou & Ors [2007] 

EWHC 2307 (Admin) at [25]. As to the passage before Example 278.8 see Re An Application 

for Judicial Review, Landlords Association for Northern Ireland, [2005] NIQB 22 at [41]. 

Section 281. Statutory interference with rights of legal process 

Pages 853-858 Relevant Index entry: legal policy:legal process, rights of [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] 

Code s 281 was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Kevin Walker v Secretary, 

Department of Social Security [1995] FCA 1136; (1995) 129 ALR 198 (1995) 36 ALD 513 

(1995) 21 Aar 147, at [19]. 

Pages 857-858 Section 281 Relevant Index entry: appeal:right of 

As to the right of a non-party to be joined as an appellant or respondent see George Wimpey UK 

Ltd v Tewkesbury Borough Council (MA Holdings Ltd intervening) [2008 EWCA Civ 12, 

[2008] 3 All ER 859. 

Division Five. Interpretative Presumptions Based on the Nature of 

Legislation 

Part XVIII. Interpretative Presumptions (General) 

Section 285. Presumption that literal meaning to be followed 

Page 864 Relevant Index entry: literal construction:presumption regarding [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] 

Code s 285 was considered in Maguire v Director of Public Prosecutions [2004] 3 IR 241 and 

Kelly v Minister for Defence & Anor [2008] IEHC 223. 

Pages 868-869 Relevant Index entry: time:commonsense construction rule and 

See Knowsley Housing Trust v White [2008] UKHL 70 at [12]. Where power is given to act 

against a person it will be inferred that it is to be done within a reasonable period: R (on the 

application of SK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 1204, 

[2009] 2 All ER 365, at [8], [9]. 

Section 286. Presumption that consequential construction to be given 

Page 871 Relevant Index entry: consequential construction:‘beneficent‟ consequences of 

See R (on the application of Hammersmith & Fulham LBC and others v Secretary of State for 

Health [1997] EWHC Admin 658. The principle was applied by the Court of Appeal of New 

Zealand in Warwick Henderson Gallery Limited v Weston [2005] NZCA 272 at [41]. 


49



Page 871 Relevant Index entry: notice, statutory:invalid 

As to the legal effect of an invalid statutory notice (Example 286.2) see Sinclair Gardens 

Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Poets Chase Freehold Co Ltd [2007] EWHC 1776 (Ch), [2008] 

2 All ER 187. 

Section 287. Presumption that rectifying construction to be given 

Page 875 Relevant Index entry: rectifying construction:examples of 

For a transitional problem in a tax case where both under the old law and the new law the 

amount of a penalty would have been £1,000 but defective drafting meant this was not the 

literal meaning in a transitional case (and in fact there was no literal meaning) see Lessex Ltd v 

HM Inspector of Taxes [2003] UKSC SPC00391. 

The first sentence of the Comment was followed in Australia in Parks Holdings Pty Ltd 

(trading as Gladstone Chemicals) and CEO of Customs [2001] AATA 562 at [156]. 

Pages 875-876 Relevant Index entry: rectifying construction:nature of 

The Inco Europe Case (the subject of Example 287.1) was applied in R (on the application of 

Kelly and another) v Secretary of State for Justice, Re: Gibson [2008] EWCA Civ 177, [2008] 

3 All ER 844, at [12], [19] (drafting error in statutory instrument). 

Page 883 Relevant Index entry: mistake:fact, as to 

See Kay v Metropolitan Police Commissioner [2008] UKHL 69, [2009] 2 All ER 935 

(Parliament mistaken on whether cycle rides organized). 

Page 885-887 Relevant Index entry: rectifying construction:casus omissus 

For a case where the Singapore Court of Appeal applied Code s 287 to give a strained 

construction so as to rectify a drafting error creating a casus omissus see Kok Chong Weng and 

Others v Wiener Robert Lorenz and Others (Ankerite Pte Ltd, intervener) [2009] SGCA 7 at 

[49]. 

Page 889 Relevant Index entry: rectifying construction:conflicting texts 

R v Moore (see footnote 4) was followed in Australia in Parks Holdings Pty Ltd (trading as 

Gladstone Chemicals) and CEO of Customs [2001] AATA 562 at [156]. 

Section 288. Presumption that updating construction to be given 

Pages 889-890 Relevant Index entry: updating construction:definition of 

The wording of Code s 288(2) was approved by Lord Woolf in R (on the application of A) v 

Westminster City Council [1997] EWCA Civ 1032 and Denham J in Keane v An Bord 

PleanálaI [1997] 3 IR 200 (dissenting judgment). In India it was approved in State v. S. J. 

Choudhary, 1996 AIR SC 1128 at 1131. 

Code s 288 should not be construed too widely: see the cautionary words in R (on the 

application of Hammersmith & Fulham LBC & Ors v Secretary Of State For Health [1998] 

EWCA Civ 1300. 

Page 890 Relevant Index entry: Act of Parliament:fixed-time 

It was held by the High Court of Australia in Giannarelli v Wraith [1988] HCA 52; (1988) 165 

CLR 543 at [18] that a subsection which rendered a barrister liable for negligence to the same 

extent as a solicitor was on 23 November 1891 liable to his client for negligence as a solicitor 

was „plainly a “fixed-time” provision‟ (followed in D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid 

[2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1; (2005) 214 ALR 92; (2005) 79 ALJR 755 at [23]). 

Page 890 Section 288(2) Relevant Index entry: updating construction:presumption favouring 


50



In Rani Santosh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 1493 the 

Federal Court of Australia applied Code s 288(2) to rule that a reference in an Act to 

regulations made under it referred such regulations as amended from time to time. The court 

also applied s 288(2) in Wojciech Marian Szelagowicz v John W Stocker, Brian G Gibbs, 

Gerald Neil Haddad and William Mark Tunningley [1994] FCA 1110; (1994) 35 ALD 16, at 

[18]. 

Page 892 Relevant Index entry: updating construction:definition of 

The expression „Yet their words remain law‟ was cited by the Israeli Supreme Court in Solel 

Boneh Building and Infrastructure Ltd and another v Estate of the late Ahmed Abed Alhamid 

deceased and others (2006) LCA 8925/04 at [8], where the court went on to cite President 

Barak‟s dictum: „Interpretation is an ever-changing process. Modern content should be given to 

the old language. Thus the disparity between the statute and life is reduced. Against this 

background it is correct to say, as Radbruch did, that the interpreter may understand the statute 

better than the creator of the statute, and that the statute is always wiser than its creator. This 

leads to the interpretive approach that is accepted in England, whereby statute should be given 

an updating interpretation . . .‟ 

Page897-899 Relevant Index entry: updating construction:law, changes in 

As to Example 288.15 see Sonea v Mehedinti District Court, Romania [2009] EWHC 89 

(Admin), [2009] 2 All ER 821. 

Page 907-909 Relevant Index entry: updating construction:words, change of meaning of, and 

For a reference to „the modern meaning of “rent”‟ see Mason v Boscawen [2008] EWHC 3100 

(Ch) at [52]. 

Page 908 Relevant Index entry: box principle 

The Court of Appeal departed from the principle of the decision described in Example 288.37 

in R v Cockburn [2008] EWCA Crim 316; [2008] 2 All ER 1153. 

The Family Court of Australia upheld the box principle in Attorney-General for the 

Commonwealth & ‘Kevin and Jennifer’ & Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 

[2003] FamCA 94 at [137][138]. 

Pages 910-911 Section 288(3) Relevant Index entry: private Act:interpretation of 

This passage was relied on in Re Scottish Water [2004] ScotsCS 41 at [19]. There is an 

interesting discussion of it by the High Court of Australia in Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd 

[1995] HCA 24; (1995) 131 ALR 422; (1995) 69 ALJR 797; (1995) 185 CLR 410 (see passage 

at footnote 148). 

Pages 912-914 Relevant Index entry: contemporanea expositio 

For a useful discussion see Isle of Anglesey Council and another v Welsh Ministers and others 

[2009] EWCA Civ 94, [2009] 3 All ER 1110, at [39]-[50]. 

Part XIX. The Mischief and its Remedy 

Section 294. Party-political mischiefs 

Page 928 Relevant Index entry: law-churning 

This topic is further dealt with in FB‟s 2008 article „Law-Churning and the Sociologists‟. 

Part XX. Purposive Construction 

Section 304. Nature of purposive construction 


51



Page 946 Relevant Index entry: purposive construction:nature of 

The comment beginning „Lord Diplock‟s third point is, with respect, erroneous‟ was 

characterized as „perceptive‟ by Bignold J in Director-General Department Of Land And Water 

Conservation v Jackson And Ors [2003] NSWLEC 81 at [90]. 

Page 949 Relevant Index entry: deeming 

As to the passage regarding deeming provisions on pp. 949-951 see UK Social Security and 

Child Support Commissioners‟ Decisions [2003] UKSSCSC CH_4546_2002 at para. 35. 

Page 950 Relevant Index entry: deeming 

The sentence beginning „The intention of a deeming provision . . .‟ was applied in Australia; 

see Bayliss and Medical Board of Queensland [1997] QICmr 6, (1997) 3 QAR 489, at [38]. 

Section 305. Purposive-and-literal construction 

Page 951 Relevant Index entry: purposive construction:purposive-and-literal construction 

The distinction between purposive-and-literal construction (Code s. 305) and purposive-andstrained 

construction (Code s. 306) is discussed in James, Re An Application for Judicial 

Review [2005] NIQB 38 at [18]. 

Page 952 Relevant Index entry: purposive construction:purposive-and-literal construction 

Arden LJ approved the passage on p. 952 under the heading Ambiguity in B Osborn & Co Ltd v 

Dior [2003] EWCA Civ 281 at paragraph 53. 

Section 306. Purposive-and-strained construction 

Page 955 Relevant Index entry: purposive construction:purposive-and-strained construction 

The distinction between purposive-and-strained construction (Code s. 306) and purposive-andliteral 

construction (Code s. 305) is discussed in James, Re An Application for Judicial Review 

[2005] NIQB 38 at [18]. 

For an example of purposive-and-strained construction see [1999] NISSCSC C55/99-00(IB) at 

para. 14. 

Part XXI. Construction Against ‘Absurdity’ 

Pages 969-1008 Sections 312-318 Relevant Index entry: absurdity 

Code Pt XXI (ss 312-318) was described as „most instructive‟ by Tadgell JA of the Supreme 

Court of Victoria Court of Appeal, see QBE Workers Compensation (Vic) Ltd v Freisleben & 

Nisselle; City of Bayside v Johns & Nisselle [1999] VSCA 207 at [19]. 

Section 312. Presumption that ‘absurd’ result not intended 

Page 969 Section 312(1) Relevant Index entry: absurdity:meaning of 

See Procurator Fiscal, Aberdeen v Aberdeen City Council [1999] ScotHC 176; C & ors v 

Minister for Health and Children [2008] IESC 33. Code s 312(1) was adopted by the Court of 

Appeal of New Zealand in Frucor Beverages Limited v R T Fyers & Ors [2001] NZCA 109 at 

[28]. 

Section 313. Avoiding an unworkable or impracticable result 

Pages 971-979 Relevant Index entry: absurdity:impracticality 


52



See Scottish & Newcastle plc v Raguz [2008] UKHL 65, [2009] 1 All ER 763 where Lord 

Hoffmann (at [10]) sought to avoid „some remarkably silly consequences‟ and Lord Walker of 

Gestingthorpe (at [65]) said „Some violence, or at least robust treatment, must be meted out to 

some part of s 17 in order to make the section as a whole workable‟. 

In Braganza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 318 at [55] the 

Federal Court of Australia treated as unworkable a construction that required „a person who has 

no money, and therefore seeks to be excused from payment of a fee, [to] pay that fee in order to 

ensure that the application for waiver is considered‟. 

See entry for pp 969-1008 s. 312-318 „absurdity‟ above. 

Pages 972-975 Relevant Index entry: strained construction:judicial acceptance ofThere may 

be „far too literal a meaning of the statutory formula‟ for the courts to find it acceptable as 

indicating the legal meaning: Cadogan v Pitts and another and other appeals [2008] UKHL 71, 

[2009] 3 All ER 365, per Lord Hoffmann at [5]. 

Section 314. Avoiding an inconvenient result 

Pages 979-986 Relevant Index entry: absurdity:inconvenience, avoidance of 


„It is of course desirable to avoid inconvenient results, if the statutory language permits. But the 

Agricultural Holdings Act does not always permit the avoidance of inconvenient or surprising 

results . . . The inconvenient result in the present case is in my judgment simply an example of 

the law of unintended consequences . . .‟ See Mason v Boscawen [2008] EWHC 3100 (Ch) at 

[54]. 

Section 315. Avoiding an anomalous or illogical result 

Page 986 Section 315 Relevant Index entry: absurdity:anomaly 

(1) Where an anomaly cannot be corrected because the literal meaning is too strong it may be 

possible to do justice by staying court proceedings as oppressive: see R v Morgan, R v Bygrave 

[2008] EWCA Crim 1323, [2008] 4 All ER 890. (2) Code s 315 was considered in Re WD 

[2007] ScotCS CSOH_139. (3) Code s 315 was applied in R (on the application of Etame) v 

Secretary of State for the Home Department and another [2008] EWHC 1140 (Admin), at [38], 

[43]. 

This includes supporting an enactment designed to reduce inconvenience: Beoku-Betts v 

Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 39, [2008] 4 All ER 1146, at [43] 

(„Surely Parliament was attempting to streamline and simplify proceedings‟). 

Section 316. Avoiding a futile or pointless result 

Pages 986-1003 Relevant Index entry: absurdity:futility 

„It seems difficult to attribute to Parliament a deliberate intention that the parties should have to 

go through what is, in effect, a sham arbitration‟: Mason v Boscawen [2008] EWHC 3100 (Ch) 

at [40]. 


Section 317. Avoiding an artificial result 

Pages 1003-1006 Relevant Index entry: absurdity:artificiality 


53




Section 318. Avoiding a disproportionate counter-mischief 

Pages 1006-1008 Relevant Index entry: absurdity:counter-mischief [New entry, not in fifth edition] 


Part XXII. Construction Against Evasion 

Section 319. Presumption that evasion not to be allowed 

Pages 1009-1014 Relevant Index entry: evasion of Act:presumption against 

For a case where counsel failed to raise fraud on an Act and the court declined to apply a 

strained construction, saying Parliament should deal with the problem, see Welwyn Hatfield 

Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government & Anor [2010] EWCA 

Civ 26 at [35], [36], [44]-[47]. 

For the rule where a claimant with a good case is guilty of collateral fraud see Ul-Haq and 

others v Shah [2009] EWCA Civ 542, [2010] 1 All ER 73. 

In Repatriation Commission v William Harold Morris & Anor [1997] FCA 152 the Federal 

Court of Australia applied Code s 319 to prevent a tribunal delaying unreasonably in giving its 

decision. See also Re Australian Building Construction Employees’ and Builders Labourers’ 

Federation v the Master Builders’ Association of New South Wales [1986] FCA 380 at [28]. 

Section 320. Evasion distinguished from avoidance 

Pages 1014-1017 Relevant Index entry: evasion of Act:avoidance, distinguished from 

What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly: Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Belperio [2006] 

VSC 14 at [248]-[251] [Australia]. 

Section 322. Methods of evasion: doing indirectly what must not be done directly 

Page 1023 Relevant Index entry: evasion of Act:indirect 

Code s 322 was applied by New South Wales Appeal Court in Fairfield City Council v N & S 

Olivieri P/L [2003] NSWCA 41 at [26]. 

Section 324. Methods of evasion: repetitious acts 

Page 1025 Relevant Index entry: evasion of Act:repetitious acts, by 

Code s 324 has been adopted in Australia: see Secretary, Department of Treasury and Finance 

v Kelly [2001] VSCA 246 at [10]; Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Belperio [2006] VSC 14 at [248]-[251]. 

Section 326. Construction which otherwise defeats legislative purpose 

Page 1030 Relevant Index entry: statutory power:invalid exercise of 

The Australian Judge Merkel J said „there is particular force‟ in the statement at Code p. 1030 

that „A construction will not be allowed which would enable persons charged with a statutory 

power or function to act in such a way as to truncate or otherwise modify what the legislature 

intended‟: Chun Wang v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 70). 

Earlier Merkel J had said of this passage: „the real point being made in the passage from 


54



Bennion is that where a judge concludes that the legislature could not have intended that a 

statute could operate in a manner which defeats its manifest object or purpose, then an 

alternative interpretation must be preferred‟ (see Jurg Bollag & Anor v The Attorney-General of 

the Commonwealth of Australia & Anor [1997] FCA 1146). The passage was also relied on in 

Staines v Workcover/Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (S A) Ltd (Air International Pty 

Ltd) [2004] SAWCT 127 and in Byrne v Transport Accident Commission [2008] VSC 92 at 

[52]. 

Page 1030 Relevant Index entry: land:meaning of 

In relation to the definition of „land‟ in the Interpretation Act 1978 Sch 1 (see Example 326.5) 

note that the definition will not be attracted where a different term such as „the commons‟ is 

used: Housden and another v Conservators of Wimbledon and Putney Commons [2008] EWCA 

Civ 200, [2008] 3 All ER 1038, at [26]. 

Part XXIII. Application of Ancillary Rules of Law 

Section 327. Presumption that ancillary rules of law apply 

Page 1033 Relevant Index entry: ancillary rules of law:implied application of 

Arden LJ has given reasons why Parliament might not specify an ancillary rule of law but leave 

it as implied, see Revenue & Customs v BUPA Purchasing Ltd & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 542 at 

[46] and London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 763 at [57], [62]. 

The presumption specified in Code s. 327 was described as „well settled‟ in King, Re 

Application for Judicial Review [2002] NICA 48 at 58. 

Page 1036 Relevant Index entry: ancillary rules of law:implied application of 

As to the passage regarding contrary intention on p. 1036 see Moore v Scottish Daily Record & 

Sunday Mail Ltd [2007] ScotCS CSOH_24 at [22], [60], [71] (statutory modification of 

contract rules). 

Page 1042 Relevant Index entry: criminal law:mens rea 

For an amplification of the reference to mens rea on p. 1042 see FB‟s 2008 article „Offences by 

Children: The Mental Element‟. 

Section 329. Presumption that public law decision-making rules apply 

Page 1050 Relevant Index entry: decision-making rules:implied application of 

The presumption specified in Code s. 329 was described as „well settled‟ in King, Re 

Application for Judicial Review [2002] NICA 48 at 58. 

Pages 1054-1055 Relevant Index entry: proportionality:UK Law, in 

See note below on JF & Anor (on the application of R) v Secretary of State for the Home 

Department [2009] EWCA Civ 792, related to Pages 1330-1333 

Pages 1055-1060 Relevant Index entry: natural justice:fairness 

„The rules of natural justice are one of the most important pillars of the common law‟: Dyson 

LJ in McNally v Secretary Of State For Education & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 332 at [38]-[40]. 

See further X v West Midlands Police [2004] EWHC 61 (Admin) at [67]; Hampstead Heath 

Winter Swimming Club & Anor v Corporation of London & Anor [2005] EWHC 713 (Admin) 

at [33]. 

Pages 1056-1057 Relevant Index entry: decision-making rules:legitimate expectation 

On the development of the doctrine of legitimate expectation see R (Bhatt Murphy) v The 

Independent Assessor [2008] EWCA Civ 755. 


55



Page 1062 Relevant Index entry: court:functus officio 

As to when a court can reopen its decision see R (on the application of AM (Cameroon)) v 

Asylum & Immigration Tribunal & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 100, [2008] 4 All ER 1159. As to 

the power of a decision-maker to revoke{decision-making rules:revocation of decision [New 

entry, not in fifth edition]} his decision see R (on the application of Dwr Cymru Cyf) v 

Environment Agency [2009] EWHC 453 (Admin), [2009] 2 All ER 919, at [22]. 

Section 330. Presumption that rules of equity apply 

Page 1064 Relevant Index entry: equity, rules of:implied application of 

For the implied application of the equitable doctrine of acquiescence see Watson and others v 

Croft Promosport Ltd [2008] EWHC 759 (QB), [2008] 3 All ER 1171, at [74]. 

For the need, where equitable doctrines arise in a case, to have a judge who is familiar with 

those doctrines see The Serious Fraud Office v Lexi Holdings Plc [2008] EWCA Crim 1443, 

[2009] 1 All ER 586, at [92]. 

Page 1067 Relevant Index entry: estoppel:general 

See Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Poets Chase Freehold Co Ltd [2007] 

EWHC 1776 (Ch), [2008] 2 All ER 187. 

Section 331. Presumption that rules of contract law apply 

Page 1069 Relevant Index entry: contract:application of law of 

See R (on the application of Association of British Travel Agents Ltd (ABTA)) v Civil Aviation 

Authority (CAA) & Anor [2006] EWHC 13 (Admin) at [103]. The court may apply contract law 

even where, because of the interposition of statute, a true contract is not in question: Warren v 

Random House Group Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 834, [2009] 2 All ER 245, at [17] (case under 

Defamation Act 1996 ss 2-4). Employment law is based partly on statute and partly on the 

common law of contract: see Buckland v Bournemouth University Higher Education Corp 

[2010] EWCA Civ 121. 


Effect of Act on existing contracts This passage was applied by the Court of Appeal of New 

Zealand in Australasian Correctional Management Limited v Corrections Association of New 

Zealand (Inc) & Anor [2002] NZCA 181 at [18]. 


As to the passage regarding contrary intention on p. 1071 see Moore v Scottish Daily Record & 

Sunday Mail Ltd [2007] ScotCS CSOH_24 at [22], [60], [71] (statutory modification of rules of 

offer and acceptance). 

Section 332. Presumption that rules of property law apply 

Pages 1072-1073 Relevant Index entry: private Act:construction of 

The passage on pp. 1072-1073 was approved by Laffoy J in Pierce v Dublin Cemeteries 

Committee [2006] IEHC 182. 

This passage is applicable to the construction of private Acts in Ireland: Pierce trading as 

Swords Memorials & Anor v The Dublin Cemeteries Committee & Ors [2006] IEHC 182. 

Section 334. Presumption that rules of criminal law apply 

Pages 1078-1080 Relevant Index entry: criminal law:mens rea 


56



For the abolition of the doctrine of doli incapax, and the criminal liability of persons who have 

not attained the age of discretion (14), see R v JTB [2009] UKHL 20, [2009] 3 All ER 1 and F 

A R Bennion, „Mens rea and defendants below the age of discretion‟ [2009] Criminal Law 

Review 757-770, www.francisbennion.com/2009/031.htm. 

Pages 1083-1084 Relevant Index entry: nemo debet bis vexari 

Anomalously, the principle of this maxim does not apply where the first „jeopardy‟ was vitiated 

by a procedural defect, eg a conviction inadvertently obtained on unsworn evidence as in R v 

Marsham, ex p Lawrence [1912] 2 KB 263 (see Green & Green Scaffolding Ltd v Staines 

Magistrates’ Court [2008] EWHC 1443 (Admin) at para 10). No reduction in sentence can any 

longer be made for double jeopardy: see Criminal Justice Act 1988 s 36(3A) and Attorney 

General’s Reference (No 24 of 2008) [2008] EWCA Crim 2936, [2009] 3 All ER 839, at [35]. 

As to autrefois acquit see Coke-Wallis v Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and 

Wales [2009] EWCA Civ 730. 

Section 335. Rules of evidence 

Page 1086 Relevant Index entry: evidence:admissibility of 

Implied rules of evidence are taken to be imported in their latest form, unless the implication is 

to the contrary. For a fundamental change regarding the admissibility of infant evidence see R v 

Barker [2010] EWCA Crim 4 at [33]-[52]. 

Page 1086n Relevant Index entry: evidence:hearsay 

As to hearsay at common law and under the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (footnote 3) see R. v 

Athwal [2009] EWCA Crim 789; [2009] Crim L. R. 726; R v Horncastle and another [2009] 

EWCA Crim 964, [2009] 4 All ER 183. 

Page 1088 Relevant Index entry: evidence:fresh 

Example 335.6 was applied in Iarnroid Eireann v Social Welfare Tribunal [2007] IEHC 406 at 

para. 8.1. 

Pages 1088-1091 Relevant Index entry: standard of proof:civil 

On the question of whether the civil standard varies with the seriousness of the matter see the 

important case of Re B (children) (sexual abuse: standard of proof) [2008] UKHL 35, [2008] 4 

All ER 1. See also R (on the application of D) v Life Sentence Review Commissioners [2008] 

UKHL 33, [2008] 4 All ER 992. 

The statement on p. 1088 that an enactment will be construed strictly where it allows a 

departure from the rules of evidence{evidence:rules of, implied importation of} was followed 

in the Hong Kong case of Tse Mui Chun v Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2003) 

FACC No 4 at para 53 where the court (which included Lord Scott of Foscote) said, citing that 

statement, „if a statutory shortcut to the proof of essential matters is to be taken advantage of it 

is essential that the conditions of the statutory shortcut be strictly observed‟. 

Pages 1092-1094 Relevant Index entry: evidence:exceptions rule 

The judgment in Director of Public Prosecutions v Wright [2009] EWHC 105 (Admin), [2009] 

3 All ER 726 (prosecution under Hunting Act 2004 s 1) contains important dicta and citations 

on this rule, particularly in relation to art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and 

the distinction between the „persuasive‟ and „evidential‟ burdens on an accused. If in a criminal 

case there is a burden of proof on the defendant it would be discharged on the civil standard 

(see [39]). Evidence may raise the possibility of a defence of, for instance, accident or selfdefence, 

which the prosecution then has the burden of disproving to the criminal standard (see 

[41]). 

Page 1094 Relevant Index entry: estoppel: in pais 


57



As to quasi-estoppel see AAA v ASH [2009] EWHC 636 (Fam), [2009] 4 All ER 641, at [81]. 

Page 1097 Relevant Index entry: evidence:without prejudice rule 

See Ofolue and another v Bossert and another [2009] UKHL 16, [2009] 3 All ER 93. 

Part XXIV. Application of Ancillary Legal Maxims 

Section 342. Double detriment: bona fides non patitur, ut his eadem exigatur 

Page 1116 Relevant Index entry: double jeopardy 

„. . . the double jeopardy rule cannot be resuscitated under the guise of the interests of justice‟: 

R v A [2008] EWCA Crim 2908, [2009] 2 All ER 898, at [41]. 

Section 343. De minimis principle: de minimis non curat lex 

Page 1116-1123 Relevant Index entry: de minimis non curat lex 

See Lt. Col. S N Saggar Ministry of Defence [2004] UKEAT 1385_01_1006 at para. 48. 

On the implied application of this maxim in relation to the definition of „game of chance‟ in the 

Gaming Act 1968 s 52(1) see R v Kelly [2008] 2 All ER 840, [2008] EWCA Crim 137, at para. 

11. 

On the implied application of this maxim in relation to the Natural Environment and Rural 

Communities Act 2006 s 67 see R (on the application of Warden and Fellows of Winchester 

College and another) v Hampshire County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 431, [2008] 3 All ER 

717, at [54]. 

On the suggested application of this maxim see Arden LJ in Roberts v Secretary of State for 

Social Security [2001] EWCA Civ 910 at [8]-[15]. 

In criminal cases the maxim can apply in aid of the prosecution: see Briere v Hailstone [1968] 

112 SJ 767 (conviction for excess speed upheld on the de minimis principle where two of the 

street lamps were too far apart by 1.5 yards). 

As to the application of the maxim in relation to administrative decisions see A and others v 

HM Treasury [2008] EWCA Civ 1187, [2009] 2 All ER 747, at [142]. 

The maxim was applied in relation to the Limitation Act 1980 s 15(1) in Port of London 

Authority v AshmoreI [2009] EWHC 954 (Ch), [2009] 4 All ER 665, at [37]. 

The maxim is applied in Australia, see: Glen Michael Belbin and Australian Maritime Safety 

Authority [1993] AATA 253, (1993) 18 AAR 208 (1993) 30 ALD 432, at [37]; Farnell 

Electronic Components Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs [1996] FCA 1135; Lloyd v Police 

[2004] SASC 278 at [57]-[69]; Zoran Lozevski v Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd. 

[2004] NSWIRComm 314 at [57]-[59]. The Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special 

Administrative Region held in Prem Singh v Director of Immigration (FACV No. 7 of 2002) at 

[73] that de minimis applied, together with the other common law rules of interpretation, to the 

Basic Law. 

Section 346. Impossibility: lex non cogit ad impossibilia 

Page 1129 Relevant Index entry: impossibility 

Code s 346 was approved and followed by Dyson LJ in R (on the application of Warden and 

Fellows of Winchester College and another) v Hampshire County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 

431, [2008] 3 All ER 717, at [50], [51]. 


58



Section 347. Necessity: necessitas non habet legem 

Pages 1133-1136 Relevant Index entry: duress 

For case management aspects see R. v S and I [2009] EWCA Com 85; [2009] Crim. LR 723. 

Section 350. Presumption of correctness: omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta 

Page 1144 Relevant Index entry: correctness, presumption of 

Code s 350 was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Re Sandvik Australia Pty Limited v 

Commonwealth of Australia and Collector of Customs [1990] FCA 386 at [12]. 

Judicial functions In a bail case it was said of the District Judge „[t]here is a presumption that 

he acted lawfully‟: R (on the application of Thomas) v Greenwich Magistrates’ Court [2009] 

EWHC 1180 (Admin) at [18]. 

Section 351. Agency:qui facit per alium facit per se 

Page 1146 Relevant Index entry: agency 

The sentence preceding Example 351.1 was followed in Midlands Co-Operative Society Ltd v 

HM Revenue & Customs [2008] EWCA Civ 305 at [14] and Hanoman v London Borough of 

Southwark [2008] EWCA Civ 624 at [37]. 

Section 352. Vigilance: vigilantibus non dormientibus leges subveniunt 

Page 1149 Relevant Index entry: time:performance, of [New entry, not in fifth edition] 

In ruling that a statutory matter is to be carried out within a reasonable time when the precise 

time is not specified, the Federal Court of Australia relied on Code s 352 together with the 

reference to a reasonable time on Code p. 285 in relation to Example 74.4 (see Susie Boswell v 

the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade [1993] FCA 562; (1993) 118 

ALR 719 (1993) 46 FCR 434, at [17]). 

Page 1149 Relevant Index entry: vigilantibus non dormientibus leges subveniunt 

Code s. 352 (formerly s. 357) was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Re Janice 

Beverly Neal v Commissioner of Superannuation [1987] FCA 182 at [7]. 

Section 353. Volenti principle: volenti non fit injuria 

Page 1152 Relevant Index entry: volenti non fit injuria 

Example 353.4 gives an example of an enactment which recognises the principle of this maxim. 

Another example is the Animals Act 1971 s 5(2). Ormrod LJ said in Cummings v Granger 

[1977] QB 397 that the interpretation of s 5(2) should not be complicated too much with „the 

old, long history of the doctrine of volenti‟. 

Division Six. Linguistic Canons of Construction 

Part XXV. Linguistic Canons of Construction: General 

Section 354. Nature of linguistic canons of construction 

Page 1155 Relevant Index entry: canons of construction, linguistic:nature of 

The first paragraph of the Comment was cited by Lord Carswell in Re McE, Re M , Re C and 

another [2009] UKHL 5, [2009] 4 All ER 335, at [98]. 


59



Section 355. Construction of Act or other instrument as a whole 

Pages 1157-1160 Relevant Index entry: words:every word to be given meaning 

This passage was relied on in Re Mary Robertson [2001] ScotCS 94 at [11]. 

Pages 1160-1161 Relevant Index entry: words:different words given different meanings 

The court followed the dictum of Blackburn J which follows Example 355.14 on pp. 1160-1161 

in James, Re An Application for Judicial Review [2005] NIQB 38 at [21]. See also Kelly v 

Minister for Defence & Anor [2008] IEHC 223. 

Pages 1160-1161 Relevant Index entry: elegant variation 

As to the remarks on elegant variation on pp. 1160-1161 see Omagh District Council, Re 

Judicial Review [2007] NIQB 61 at [50]. 

Page 1163 Relevant Index entry: repugnancy:within same Act 

In Ignatious v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 

1395 at [67] the Federal Court of Australia held the rule in Wood v Riley „to be as applicable to 

regulations as it is to statutes‟. 

Page 1164 Relevant Index entry: generalibus specialia derogant: [incorrectly given in the Index as 

generalia specialia derogant] 

See Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 175; R (on 

the application of AW) v London Borough of Croydon [2005] EWHC 2950 (QB) at [17]; R v 

Boutrab [2007] NICA 23 at [25], [32]. 

Part XXVII. Linguistic Canons of Construction: Interpretation of 

Particular Words and Phrases 

Section 363. Ordinary meaning of words and phrases 

Pages 1190-1191 Relevant Index entry: time:tense 

„. . . unless the contextual imperative to the contrary is very powerful indeed, the use of the 

present tense excludes the future, let alone the future conditional. It would seem wrong to 

extend a duty owed to a person who satisfies a statutory requirement to a person who currently 

does not satisfy the requirement simply because he will or may do so in the future.‟ (R (on the 

application of M) v Slough Borough Council [2008] UKHL 52, [2008] 4 All ER 831, at [55], 

per Lord Neuberger). 

„I think the use of the present tense, indicated by the word “is”, provides the best guide to what 

the phrase means‟: Majorstake Ltd v Curtis [2008] UKHL 10, [2008] 2 All ER 303, at [3]. 

It may be intended to refer to a situation which subsists over time, that is both in the present and 

in the future: see Manchester City Council v Moran [2009] UKHL 36, [2009] 4 All ER 161, 

(housing of homeless persons). 

Page 1192 Relevant Index entry: disjunctive use of ‘and’ [New entry, not in fifth edition] 

Example 363.25 was applied in relation to „crime and disorder‟ in Blackpool Borough 

Council v Howitt [2008] EWHC 3300(Admin), [2009] 4 All ER 154, at [17]-[20]. 

Page 1193 Relevant Index entry: omission to act 

For the fixing of an artificial date for the notional occurrence of an omission to act see 

Matuszowicz v Kingston Upon Hull City Council [2009] EWCA Civ 22, [2009] 3 All ER 685, 

where Sedley LJ said at [38] that the required contentions „demand a measure of poker-faced 

insincerity which only a lawyer could understand or a casuist forgive‟. 


60



Section 364. Composite expressions 

Page 1192 Relevant Index entry: ordinary meaning:nature of 

On the meaning of „and‟ and „or‟ see Pilling and others v Reynolds and another [2008] EWHC 

316 (QB), [2009] 1 All ER 163, at [21]. 

Page 1193 Relevant Index entry: existence 

Regarding the first line on this page, a reference to a collective noun, such as a „woodland‟, 

which includes things in posse as well as things in esse is taken to include both: see Palm 

Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWHC 

220 (Admin) at [42] (tree preservation order). 

Pages 1193-1197 Relevant Index entry: composite expressions 

Code s 364 was applied by New South Wales Appeal Court in Victims Compensation Fund v 

Scott Brown & Ors [2002] NSWCA 155 at (ix). 

Pages 1196-1197 Relevant Index entry: weightless drafting 

This passage was applied by New South Wales Appeal Court in Victims Compensation Fund v 

Scott Brown & Ors [2002] NSWCA 155 at (ix). 

For examples of weightless drafting see Palm Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for 

Communities and Local Government [2009] EWHC 220 (Admin) at [26], where Cranston J 

said that such provisions „avoid the need for unprofitable disputes‟. 

Page 1198 Relevant Index entry: hendiadys 

See the Australian case of Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown [2003] HCA 54; 

(2003) 201 ALR 260; (2003) 77 ALJR 1797, at [34]. 

Section 365. Technical terms (general) 

Page 1198 Relevant Index entry: technical terms:interpretation of 

For a discussion by the Supreme Court of Victoria of the passage beginning „Where it is 

possible to identify a particular expertise . . .‟ see The Distribution Group Ltd v Commissioner 

of Taxation [2000] VSC 418 at [32]. 

Section 366. Technical legal terms 

Pages 1199-1200 Relevant Index entry: free-standing term 

In Schanka v Employment National (Administration) Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 202 at [13] the 

Federal Court of Australia discussed this passage and held that „duress‟ was not a free-standing 

legal term. This was applied in Maritime Union of Australia v Burnie Port Corporation Pty Ltd 

[2000] FCA 1189 at [26]. 

Section 367. Technical non-legal terms 

Page 1205 Relevant Index entry: technical terms:non-legal terms 

As to the case dealt with in Example 367.7 see the Irish case Quigley -v- Harris [2008] IEHC 

403. 

Section 369. Neologisms and slang 

Page 1209 Relevant Index entry: neologism 


61



Code s 369 was cited by the Federal Court of Australia in Bozidar Jankovic and Ljubica Kuga v 

Minister of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1994] FCA 1316; (1994) 35 

ALD 261, at [27]. 

Section 370. Archaisms 

Pages 1213-1215 Relevant Index entry: archaisms 

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 empowers a constable to enter and search premises 

without a warrant for the purpose of „saving life or limb‟. In Baker v Crown Prosecution 

Service [2009] EWHC 299 (Admin) Sir Anthony May said (at [25]) that this „is a colourful, 

slightly outmoded expression‟. In Syed v Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] EWHC 81 

(Admin) at [11] Collins J concurred. 

Section 373. Homonyms 

Pages 1217-1219 Relevant Index entry: homonym 

On the use of a word with different meanings in the same section see Secretary of State for the 

Home Department v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWHC Admin 261 at [34]-[35]. 

Section 375. Judicial notice of meaning 

Pages 1221-1222 Relevant Index entry: judicial notice:meaning of words, of 

On the passage headed Law or fact? see Procter & Gamble UK v Revenue & Customs [2008] 

EWHC 1558 (Ch) at [27]. 

Part XXVIII. Linguistic Canons of Construction: Elaboration of Meaning 

of Words and Phrases 

Section 378. Noscitur a sociis principle 

Pages 1225-1231 Relevant Index entry: noscitur a sociis principle 

The words on page 1226 from Bourne (Inspector of Taxes) v Norwich Crematorium Ltd [1967] 

1 WLR 691 were applied in Syed v Director of Public Prosecutions [2010] EWHC 81 (Admin 

at [16]. 

For the application of this principle by the Federal Court of Australia in relation to the term 

„leaflet‟ see Australian Postal Corp v Pac-Rim Printing Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 640 at [60]-[66]. 

Section 384. Ejusdem generis principle:general words followed by narrower genusdescribing 

terms 

Page 1242 Relevant Index entry: ejusdem generis principle:general words followed by narrower 

term 

Code s 384 was followed by the Supreme Court of Queensland Court of Appeal in Pepper v A- 

G (Qld) [No 2] [2008] QCA 207 at [32]. 

Section 388. Reddendo singula singulis principle 

Pages 1247-1249 Relevant Index entry: reddendo singula singulis principle 


62



This principle was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Switzerland Insurance Australia 

Ltd v Mowie Fisheries Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 231 and in Minister of State for Employment 

Workplace Relations and Small Business v Community and Public Sector Union [2001] FCA 

316„. It was also applied by the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island in Minister for Immigration & 

Community Services v Summerscales [2000] NFSC 4 at [37]. 

Section 389. Expressum facit cessare tacitum 

Pages 1249-1250 Relevant Index entry: expressum facit cessare tacitum 

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry gave a good example of this principle in Kay v Commissioner of Police 

of the Metropolis [2008] UKHL 69 at [42]: „Where the Act contains a specific provision prohibiting 

certain processions, there is no room for implying into another provision a requirement which would 

have the effect of prohibiting a different type of procession by exposing the organisers to a criminal 

conviction and fine‟. 

Section 390. Expressio unius principle: description 

Page 1250 Relevant Index entry: expressio unius principle:nature of 

Code s 390 was relied on in Perrin and another v Northampton Borough Council and others 

[2008] EWCA Civ 1353, [2008] 4 All ER 673, at [32]. 

Section 393. Expressio unius principle: words of extension 

Page 1254-1255 Relevant Index entry: reasons, duty to give [New entry, not in fifth edition] 

There is no general duty at common law to give reasons for an administrative decision, 

especially where statutory duties such as those imposed by the Freedom of Information Act 

2000 apply: Hasan v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2008] EWCA Civ 1311, [2009] 

3 All ER 539. 

Page 1255 Relevant Index entry: expressio unius principle:extending words and 

Code s. 393 was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Re David Harold Eastman v 

Commissioner of Superannuation [1987] FCA 188 at [29]-[30]. 

Section 397. Implication where statutory description only partly met 

Page 1262 Section 397(1) Relevant Index entry: implication:statutory description, partially met, and 

See comments on Code s 397(1) by Arden LJ in Roberts v Secretary of State for Social Security 

[2001] EWCA Civ 910 at paragraphs 11-14. 

Page 1262 Section 397(2) Relevant Index entry: implication:statutory description, partially met, and 

Code s 397(2) was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Switzerland Insurance Australia 

Ltd v Mowie Fisheries Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 231. 

Division Seven. Europe 

Part XXIX. Community law and the European Court 

Section 404. Legitimate expectation 

Pages 1278-1279 Relevant Index entry: decision-making rules:legitimate expectation 

„ . . . a claim to a legitimate expectation can be based only upon a promise which is “clear, 

unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification”: see Bingham LJ in R v Inland Revenue 


63



Commissioners, Ex p MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545, 1569„. (R (On The 

Application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2008] 

UKHL 61, [2008] 3 WLR 955, per Lord Hoffmann at [60]). 

Section 412. Transposing of Community law 

Pages 1290-1293 Relevant Index entry: transposition of European Community law:UK 

transposing enactment, interpretation of 

„This may be another case in which the draftsman thought he could clarify the meaning of a 

directive but would have done better to leave its language alone‟: Spencer-Franks v Kellogg 

Brown and Root Ltd and others [2008] UKHL 46, [2009] 1 All ER 269, at [26]. 

For an error in transposing see Marks & Spencer plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners 

[2009] UKHL 8,at [8]. 

Section 413. Effect of Community law on UK enactments 

Pages 1297-1300 Relevant Index entry: European Community Law:UK law, effect of, on 

See R (on the application of Irving) v Secretary of State for Transport [2008] EWHC 1200 

(Admin), which involved a strained construction of the Road Traffic Act 1988 s 92 to comply 

with a directive which had not been transposed into UK law. 

Section 417. Remedies against Member States 

Pages 1308-1309 Relevant Index entry: European Community law:member states‟ laws 

A claim for Francovich damages against the government for failing to implement Community 

law is a claim in tort to which the Limitation Act 1980 s 2 applies: Spencer v Secretary of State 

for Work and Pensions [2008] EWCA Civ 750, [2009] 1 All ER 314, at [17], [46]. 

Part XXX. Human Rights Act 1998 

Introduction to Part XXX 

Page 1312 Relevant Index entry: European Convention on Human Rights:proportionality 

As to proportionality see AS (Somalia) and another v Secretary of State for the Home 

Department [2009] UKHL 32, [2009] 4 All ER 711, at [18]. 

Section 419. Nature of the Convention rights 

Pages 1318 Relevant Index entry: European Convention on Human Rights:Art 13 

See R (on the application of Etame) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another 

[2008] EWHC 1140 (Admin), at [47]. 

Section 420. Duty to take account of Convention jurisprudence 

Pages 1320-1322 Relevant Index entry: Human Rights Act 1998: Convention jurisprudence, duty to 

take account of 

As to refusal by a UK court to take account of defective Convention jurisprudence see R. v 

Horncastle & Ors [2009] UKSC 14. 


64



Section 421. Compatible construction rule 

Page 1325 Relevant Index entry: parliament:judges and 

„It is a fundamental principle of our constitutional structures that Parliament should not 

normally be subject to judicial scrutiny or supervision. The House of Commons is answerable 

to its collective conscience, and in the ultimate analysis, to the electorate.‟ (Corporate Officer 

of the House of Commons v The Information Commissioner & Ors [2008] EWHC 1084 

(Admin), [2009] 3 All ER 403, at [2]). 

Section 422. Judicial declaration of incompatibility (primary legislation) 

Pages 1330-1333 Relevant Index entry: incompatibility, declaration of, under Human Rights Act 

1998:primary legislation, in respect of 

For the quashing of a declaration of incompatibility relating to art 3 (torture) of the Convention 

see Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nasseri [2009] 1 All ER 116. 

For the making of a declaration of incompatibility in relation to the Care Standards Act 2000 s 

82(4)(b) see R (on the application of Wright and others) v Secretary of State for Health and 

another [2009] UKHL 3, [2009] 2 All ER 129 (Court of Appeal‟s proposal to write in words 

under Human Rights Act Act 1998 s 3 held inappropriate). Lady Hale said at [38]: „It is not for 

us to attempt to rewrite the legislation‟. 

For the making of a declaration of incompatibility in relation to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s 

82(1) (Sex Offenders Register) see JF & Anor (on the application of R) v Secretary of State for 

the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 792. It was held to be disproportionate to require 

registration for life without review. 

Section 426. Ministers’ statements of compatibility regarding Bills 

Page 1334 Relevant Index entry: Human Rights Act 1998:compatibility, ministers‟ statements of 

In relation to Code s 426(1)(b) (reproducing the Human Rights Act 1998 s 19(1)(b)), see R (On 

The Application of Animal Defenders International v Secretary of State For Culture, Media and 

Sport [2008] 2 WLR 781, [2008] UKHL 15 para [13] (in relation to Bill for the 

Communications Act 2003, Minister made statement under s 19(1)(b)). 

Section 443. Article 5 of Convention (right to liberty and security) 

Pages 1350-1352 Relevant Index entry: European Convention on Human Rights:Art 5 (liberty and 

security) 

For a finding that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 s 35(1) contravenes art 5(4) and that a 

declaration of incompatibility should be made see R (on the application of Black) v Secretary of 

State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 359, [2008] 4 All ER 151. 

Section 444. Article 6 of Convention (right to a fair trial) 

Pages 1353-1358 Relevant Index entry: European Convention on Human Rights:Art 6 (fair trial) 

Art 6 does not require a right of appeal: R (on the application of Langley v Preston Crown 

Court [2008] EWHC, [2009] 3 All ER 1026 at [26]. 

Page 1356 Relevant Index entry: Human Rights Act 1998:civil rights, meaning of [New entry, not in 


See R (on the application of A) v London Borough of Croydon [2009] UKSC 8. 


65



Section 447. Article 9 of Convention (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) 

Pages 1362-1363 Relevant index entry: European Convention on Human Rights: Art 9 (thought, 

conscience and religion) 

In C v United Kingdom App. No. 10358/83, 37 ECHR Dec & Rep 142, the European 

Commission declared inadmissible a claim by a Quaker that he should not be required to pay 

tax insofar as it was used to finance weapons research. The Commission said (at 147) that art 9 

„primarily protects the sphere of personal beliefs and religious creeds, i.e. the area which is 

sometimes called the forum internum.‟ Accordingly art 9 „does not always guarantee the right 

to behave in the public sphere in a way which is dictated by such a belief‟: see 9 [2009] EWCA 

Civ 1357 at [57]. In the latter case the English Court of Appeal upheld a finding that her 

employer was entitled to compel Ms Lillian Ladele to register civil partnerships even though 

she objected to officiating at such registrations on the ground of her religious belief. Lord 

Neuberger MR (at [60]) cited Sachs J in Christian Education South Africa v Minister of 

Education (2000) Case CCT 4/00, para 35 (Constitutional Court of South Africa): 

„The underlying problem in any open and democratic society based on human dignity, 

equality and freedom in which conscientious and religious freedom has to be regarded with 

appropriate seriousness, is how far such democracy can and must go in allowing members of 

religious communities to define for themselves which laws they will obey and which not. 

Such a society can cohere only if all its participants accept that certain basic norms and 

standards are binding. Accordingly, believers cannot claim an automatic right to be exempted 

by their beliefs from the laws of the land. At the same time, the state should, wherever 

reasonably possible, seek to avoid putting believers to extremely painful and intensely 

burdensome choices of either being true to their faith or else respectful of the law‟. 

Section 455. Article 1 of First Protocol (protection of property) 

Pages 1368-1369 Relevant Index entry: European Convention on Human Rights:First Protocol, Art 

1 (protection of property) 

It would infringe Art 1 to hold that the sole surviving member of an unincorporated 

association cannot claim the assets of the association and that they vest in the Crown as bona 

vacantia: Hanchett-Stamford v Attorney General and another [2008] EWHC 330 (Ch), [2008] 

4 All ER 323, at [47]-[49]. 

Section 462. Meaning of terms defined in or connected with Human Rights Act 1998 

Page 1373 Relevant Index entry: Human Rights Act 1998:interpretation of 

As to „necessary in a democratic society‟ see Corporate Officer of the House of Commons v 

The Information Commissioner & Ors [2008] EWHC 1084 (Admin), [2009] 3 All ER 403, at 

[43]. 

Section 463. Meaning of ‘the Convention’. 

Page 1376 Relevant Index entry: Human Rights Act 1998:‟Convention, the‟, meaning of [New entry, 

not in fifth edition] 

For the effect of the words „as it has effect for the time being in relation to the United 

Kingdom‟ see R (On The Application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State For Foreign and 

Commonwealth Affairs [2008] UKHL 61, [2008] 3 WLR 955, at [65]. 


66



Appendix E List of Terms 

Pages 1419-1424 Relevant Index entry: terms, meaning of (list) 

Note Entries given below either replace certain of those given in the fifth edition or (where marked 

with an asterisk) are new entries. 

Page 1419 act of state* 238 

Page 1419 affidavit 1397 

Page 1419 associated state 340, 1394 

Page 1419 Bank of England 1394 

Page 1419 bastard 388, 903 

Page 1419 British Islands 342, 343, 351, 1398, 1404 

Page 1419 British possession 343, 1395 

Page 1419 building regulations 1395 

Page 1419 central funds 1049n, 1395 

Page 1420 Charity Commission 1395, 1400 (New entry) 

Page 1420 Charity Commissioners 1400 

Page 1420 child 544, 894, 990 

Page 1420 Church Commissioners 1395 

Page 1420 colonial legislature 1395 

Page 1420 colony 345, 897, 1395 

Page 1420 commencement 273, 277-287, 744, 1387, 1395 

Page 1420 committed for trial 1395, 1416 

Page 1420 Communities, the 1395 

Page 1420 Community Treaties, the 1395 

Page 1420 Comptroller and Auditor General 1396 

Page 1420 consular officer 1396 

Page 1420 Corporation Tax Acts, the 1396, 1400 

Page 1420 county court 141, 145, 1226, 1396 

Page 1420 Court of Appeal 148-151, 392, 1396, 

Page 1420 court of record 139-140 

Page 1420 court of summary jurisdiction 145, 1396 

Page 1420 Crown Court 140141, 1396 

Page 1420 Crown Estate Commissioners 1396 

Page 1420 England 346, 1396 

Page 1421 family 903, 1201 

Page 1421 financial year 1396 

Page 1421 Governor-General 1397 


67



Page 1421 High Court 138-140 

Page 1421 Income Tax Acts, the 567, 1397 

Page 1421 indictable offence 1399 

Page 1422 land 569, 581, 1404 

Page 1422 Lands Clauses Acts 1397 

Page 1422 legislature 241 

Page 1422 local land charges register 1397 

Page 1422 London borough 1397, 1401 

Page 1422 Lord Chancellor 1397 

Page 1422 magistrates‟ court 141, 145, 1397 

Page 1422 month 581, 1397 

Page 1422 National Debt Commissioners 1397 

Page 1422 Northern Ireland legislation 1393 

Page 1422 oath 1397 

Page 1422 offence triable either way 1399 

Page 1422 ordnance map 1398 

Page 1422 Parliamentary election 1398 

Page 1422 person 576, 588, 676, 991, 1046, 1212, 1398, 1404 

Page 1422 police 1398 

Page 1423 police area 1398, 1401 

Page 1423 police authority 1398, 1401 

Page 1423 Privy Council, the 250-251, 1398 

Page 1423 registered (re nurses etc) 1398 

Page 1423 registered medical practitioner 1398 

Page 1423 relationship 1400 

Page 1423 road 955, 1238 

Page 1423 rules of court 268, 1398 

Page 1423 Secretary of State 86, 252, 1398 

Page 1423 service by post 582, 1388 

Page 1423 standard scale, the 1398, 1402 

Page 1423 statutory declaration 1399 

Page 1423 statutory maximum 1399, 1402 

Page 1423 summary conviction 1396, 1399 

Page 1423 Summary Jurisdiction Acts 1396 

Page 1423 summary offence 1399 

Page 1423 Supreme Court 138-139 152-153, 739 


68



Page 1423 swear 1397 

Page 1423 Tax Acts, the 1393, 1399 

Page 1424 Treasury, the 1399 

Page 1424 Treaties, the 1395 

Page 1424 triable either way 1399-1400 

Page 1424 trustees of land 1399, 1402 

Page 1424 trust of land 1399, 1402 

Page 1424 United Kingdom 358-359 

Page 1424 United Kingdom trust territory 384 

Page 1424 Wales 359 

Page 1424 water undertaker 1399-1403 

Page 1424 without prejudice 974, 1097 

Page 1424 writing 1399 

Page 1424 zillmerising 1204 


69



Appendix H Some responses to Code s 288 (updating construction) 

II - Updating Construction and Common Law 

Pages 1459-1460 Relevant Index entry: updating construction:common law, and 

See the Australian case of Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Kumar [2009] HCA 10, 

at [21]. 


70




71



6. Index to Fifth Edition Updating Notes 

Note Except where the contrary appears the Index to Updating Notes uses the same wording as is used 

for entries in the Index to the fifth edition, www.francisbennion.com/2008/013/index. Occasionally a 

new entry is treated as added to the Index to the fifth edition, and this is stated below. 

absurdity ...................................................... 52 

anomaly ..................................................... 53 

artificiality ................................................. 53 

counter-mischief [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] .................................................. 54 

futility ........................................................ 53 

impracticality ............................................ 52 

inconvenience, avoidance of ..................... 53 

meaning of ................................................ 52 

academic point ............................................. 24 

Act of Parliament 

fixed-time .................................................. 50 

format [New entry, not in fifth edition] ..... 45 

overriding effect of ................................... 26 

act of state 

nature of .................................................... 27 

advocate 

lay .............................................................. 23 

agency ........................................................... 59 

amendment to Act 

delegated legislation, by ............................ 29 

missed consequential [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] .................................................. 29 

reference to amended Act ......................... 29 

textual ........................................................ 28 

ancillary rules of law 

implied application of ............................... 55 

anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) .......... 22 

appeal 

right of ....................................................... 49 

application of Act 

foreign elements within the territory, and . 31 

non-resident Britons, to ............................. 32 

principles governing .................................. 31 

archaisms ..................................................... 62 

assessor ......................................................... 32 

Attorney General v Great Eastern Railway 

Co., rule in ......................................... 28, 36 

Barras principle ........................................... 41 

Bill, parliamentary 

legal status of ............................................ 26 

Book, this 

nature of .................................................... 19 

box principle ................................................ 51 

Brown direction ........................................... 22 

byelaws 

uncertainty, void for .................................. 28 


72 

canons of construction, linguistic 

nature of .................................................... 59 

cause of action ............................................. 33 

champerty ..................................................... 46 

children 

welfare of .................................................. 37 

common law 

abolition of common law rules by Act...... 26 

presumption as to statutory alteration of ... 47 

commonsense construction rule ................. 38 

composite act or omission .......................... 32 

composite expressions ................................. 61 

consequential construction 

„beneficent‟ consequences of .................... 49 

mandatory and directory provisions, and .. 20 

consolidation Act 

Acts consolidating with amendments ....... 42 

constitutional rights .................................... 25 

construe, meaning of ................................... 19 

consultation [New entry, not in fifth edition] 

.................................................................. 28 

contemporanea expositio ....................... 43, 51 

contract 

application of law of ................................. 56 

correctness, presumption of ....................... 59 

counter-intuitive readings .......................... 34 

court 

adversarial system ..................................... 33 

functus officio ........................................... 56 

guidelines by ............................................. 24 

criminal law 

mens rea .............................................. 55, 56 

criminal procedure 

cautions [New entry, not in fifth edition] .. 22 

sentencing ................................................. 36 

Crown 

ambit of concept ....................................... 26 

Crown Prosecution Service ........................ 22 

cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et 

ad inferos [New entry, not in fifth edition]31 

de minimis non curat lex ............................. 58 

decision-making rules 


legitimate expectation ......................... 55, 63 

declaration [New entry, not in fifth edition] 25 

declaratory enactment ................................ 25 

deeming ........................................................ 52



definition, statutory 

clarifying ................................................... 39 

enlarging ................................................... 39 

potency of term defined ............................ 39 

referential .................................................. 39 

substantive effect, having .......................... 39 

delegated legislation 

„as if in Act‟ .............................................. 27 

Act, conflict with ...................................... 27 

primary intention, rule of .......................... 28 

devolution .................................................... 19 

differential readings 

nature of .................................................... 24 

direction ....................................................... 28 

discretion 

judgment, distinguished from ................... 23 

disjunctive use of ‘and’ [New entry, not in 

fifth edition] ............................................... 60 

double jeopardy ........................................... 58 

doubtful penalisation, principle against .... 48 

nature of ............................................ 48, See 

physical restraint of the person ................. 48 

drafting error 

presumption against .................................. 33 

ejusdem generis principle 

general words followed by narrower term 62 

elegant variation .......................................... 60 

ellipsis (the Relevant Index entry should not be 

italicised) ................................................... 35 

equity, rules of 


estoppel 

executive ................................................... 42 

general ....................................................... 56 

in pais ........................................................ 57 

European Community law 

member states' laws................................... 64 

European Community Law 

UK law, effect of, on ................................. 64 

European Convention on Human Rights 

Art 13 ........................................................ 64 

Art 5 (liberty and security) ........................ 65 

Art 6 (fair trial).......................................... 65 

Art 9 (thought, conscience and religion) ... 66 

First Protocol, Art 1 (protection of property) 

.............................................................. 66 

proportionality........................................... 64 

evasion of Act 

avoidance, distinguished from .................. 54 

indirect ...................................................... 54 


repetitious acts, by .................................... 54 

evidence 

admissibility of ......................................... 57 

exceptions rule .......................................... 57 

fresh .......................................................... 57 

fresh evidence ........................................... 24 

hearsay ...................................................... 57 

without prejudice rule ............................... 58 

examples 

primary legislation in ................................ 45 

exclusionary rule, the 

control of its procedure by court and ........ 42 

reasons for ................................................. 42 

existence ....................................................... 61 

expressio unius principle 

extending words and ................................. 63 

nature of .................................................... 63 

expressum facit cessare tacitum .................. 63 

fact 

ascertainment of ........................................ 40 

proof of ..................................................... 33 

relevant and irrelevant .............................. 33 

free-standing term ...................................... 61 

functional construction 

delegated legislation and ........................... 44 

generalia specialibus non derogant ............ 29 

generalibus specialia derogant 

[incorrectly given in the Index as generalia 

specialia derogant] ............................... 60 

golden rule ................................................... 19 

government department 

Act, in charge of ....................................... 42 

guidelines issued by .................................. 43 

government departments 

official statements by [New entry, not in 

fifth edition] .......................................... 43 

greater includes less .................................... 39 

habeas corpus ............................................... 48 

heading 

interpretation by reference to .................... 45 

hendiadys ..................................................... 61 

homonym ..................................................... 62 

Human Rights Act 1998 

„Convention, the‟, meaning of [New entry, 

not in fifth edition] ................................ 66 

civil rights, meaning of [New entry, not in 

fifth edition] .......................................... 65 

compatibility, ministers‟ statements of ..... 65 

interpretation of ........................................ 66 

ignorantia juris neminem excusat ............... 20 

illegality 

fraud .......................................................... 46 


73



in bonam partem (in good faith) 

construction ........................................... 46 

implication 

legitimacy of ............................................. 35 

limitation on express words, of ................. 36 

related law, affecting ................................. 36 

statutory description, partially met, and .... 63 

impossibility ................................................. 58 

in pari materia, Acts ............................... 41, 44 

incompatibility, declaration of, under 

Human Rights Act 1998 

primary legislation, in respect of [New 

entry, not in fifth edition] ...................... 65 

incorporation by reference 

archival drafting ........................................ 46 

nature of .................................................... 46 

informed interpretation 

context ....................................................... 41 

rule ............................................................ 40 

inherent judicial powers 

appeal, relating to [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] .................................................. 23 

intention, legislative 

duplex approach to .................................... 34 

fictitious, whether ..................................... 34 

Interpretation Act 1978 

general ....................................................... 40 

interpretative factors 

consistent result from, effect of................. 37 

interpreter of enactment 

legal knowledge, need for ......................... 41 

interstitial articulation 

examples of ............................................... 37 

meaning of ................................................ 36 

judicial notice 

meaning of words, of ................................ 62 

judicial review 

prosecution of offences [New entry, not in 

fifth edition] ........................................... 22 

jurisdiction 

ouster of .................................................... 23 

jury 

function of ................................................. 32 

justice 

law should serve ........................................ 46 

miscarriage of [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] .................................................. 47 

land 

meaning of ................................................ 55 

law-churning ................................................ 51 

legal meaning 

multilingual systems ................................. 19 

legal meaning 

must be „real‟ ............................................ 19 

legal meaning ............................................... 19 

legal meaning 

nature of .................................................... 33 

legal policy 

law should be consistent ........................... 47 

legal process, rights of [New entry, not in 

fifth edition] .......................................... 49 

nature of .................................................... 46 

property rights and .................................... 48 

property rights, and ................................... 49 

legal policy:law should not be changed 

casually ..................................................... 47 

legal proceedings 

academic or hypothetical point ................. 24 

legality, principle of (constitutional rights) 

.................................................................. 47 

legislation 

primary and secondary [New entry, not in 

fifth edition] .................................... 27, 28 

remedial [New entry, not in fifth edition] .. 37 

legislative history 

consolidation Acts and .............................. 41 

literal construction 

presumption regarding [New entry, not in 

fifth edition] .......................................... 49 

long title 

interpretative use of .................................. 44 

Lords, House of 

precedent, and ........................................... 25 

mandatory and directory requirements .. 20, 

21 

mistake 

fact, as to ................................................... 50 

mistake of law 

Parliament, by ........................................... 44 

natural justice 

fairness ...................................................... 55 

nemo debet bis vexari ................................... 57 

neologism ..................................................... 61 

noscitur a sociis principle ............................ 62 

notice, statutory 

invalid ....................................................... 50 

Ombudsman 

general ...................................................... 21 

omission to act ....................................... 32, 60 

open court, principle of the 

nature of .................................................... 23 

ordinary meaning 

nature of .................................................... 61 

Padfield approach ....................................... 22 


74



pardon 

power to grant ........................................... 27 

parliament 

judges and ................................................. 65 

Pepper v Hart, rule in 

judicial application of ............................... 42 

retreat from [New entry, not in fifth edition] 

.............................................................. 42 

per incuriam decision 

nature of .................................................. See 

person ........................................................... 40 

plain language movement ........................... 20 

plain meaning rule 

meaning of ................................................ 38 

political factors 

enactment, behind ..................................... 35 

pre-Act law, the [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] ...................................................... 41 

precedent, doctrine of 

obiter dictum [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] .................................................. 25 

prerogative instrument 

nature of .................................................... 26 

presumptions of construction 

Pointe Gourde rule .................................... 34 

private Act 

construction of .......................................... 56 

interpretation of ......................................... 51 

processing of enactments, dynamic 

courts, by ................................................... 34 

proportionality 

UK Law, in................................................ 55 

prosecution of offences 

judicial review [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] .................................................. 22 

private prosecutions .................................. 22 

Shawcross exercise [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] .................................................. 22 

punctuation 


purpose clause 

nature of .................................................... 45 

purposive construction 

nature of .................................................... 52 

purposive-and-literal construction ............ 52 

purposive-and-strained construction ......... 52 

Queen’s Printer ........................................... 26 

reasons, duty to give [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] ...................................................... 63 

rectifying construction 

casus omissus ............................................ 50 

conflicting texts ......................................... 50 

examples of ............................................... 50 

nature of .................................................... 50 

recusal .......................................................... 32 

reddendo singula singulis principle ............ 62 

relator action ............................................... 21 

repeal 

implied ...................................................... 29 

nature of .................................................... 29 

repugnancy 

within same Act ........................................ 60 

res magis valeat quam pereat ...................... 39 

retrospectivity 

nature of .................................................... 30 


procedural provisions and ......................... 30 

Royal Assent 

refusal of ................................................... 26 

rules of construction 

remedial legislation [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] .................................................. 37 

saving 

common law and ....................................... 30 

Secretary of State ........................................ 22 

Section name (sidenote, heading or title) 


selective comminution 

meaning of ................................................ 32 

sentencing .................See criminal procedure 

separation of powers, doctrine of .............. 22 

severance 

Order in Council, in [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] .................................................. 28 

singular and plural ..................................... 40 

specialty ....................................................... 20 

standard of proof 

civil ........................................................... 57 

state 

fairness by [New entry, not in fifth edition] 

.............................................................. 47 

statutory duty 

types of ..................................................... 20 

statutory interpretation 

basic rule ................................................... 38 

contrary intention [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] .................................................. 39 

delegated legislation, by reference to ....... 43 

public good construction........................... 30 

statutory power 

invalid exercise of ..................................... 54 

statutory right 

contracting out of ...................................... 21 

strained construction 


75



judicial acceptance of ................................ 53 

reasons justifying ...................................... 34 

strict and liberal construction .................... 37 

strict liability................................................ 21 

sub-rules ....................................................... 44 

tacit legislation ............................................. 44 

proviso, nature of ...................................... 44 

tax law rewrite Acts .................................... 25 

technical terms 

interpretation of ......................................... 61 

non-legal terms.......................................... 61 

terms, meaning of (list) ............................... 67 

territorial extent of Act 

basic rule ................................................... 30 

uniform meaning throughout extent .......... 31 

United Kingdom, presumption extent 

limited to ............................................... 31 

time 

commonsense construction rule and ......... 49 

performance, of [New entry, not in fifth 

edition] .................................................. 59 

tense .......................................................... 60 

transitional provisions ................................ 30 

transposition of European Community law 

UK transposing enactment, interpretation of 

.............................................................. 64 

treaty 

interpretation of ........................................ 43 

Treaty 

status of ..................................................... 42 

ultra vires, doctrine of 

delegated legislation, and .......................... 27 

unincorporated association ........................ 40 

updating construction 

common law, and ...................................... 70 

definition of ........................................ 50, 51 

law, changes in ......................................... 51 

presumption favouring .............................. 50 

words, change of meaning of, and ............ 51 

user of legislation ........................................ 47 

vigilantibus non dormientibus leges 

subveniunt ................................................ 59 

volenti non fit injuria ................................... 59 

weightless drafting ...................................... 61 

words 

different words given different meanings . 60 

every word to be given meaning ............... 60 


76

BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ... - Francis Bennion

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?