BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ... - Francis Bennion

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