BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ... - Francis Bennion

More documents

Recommendations

Info

BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 24, 25 Mar 2010) 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 www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn 52
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 24, 25 Mar 2010) 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 See entry for pp 969-1008 s. 312-318 „absurdity‟ above. „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]. See entry for pp 969-1008 s. 312-318 „absurdity‟ above. Section 317. Avoiding an artificial result Pages 1003-1006 Relevant Index entry: absurdity:artificiality www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn 53
Page 1 and 2: BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Page 51: BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ... - Francis Bennion

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?