BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ... - Francis Bennion

BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 24, 25 Mar 2010)
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‟.
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
60