05.04.2015 Views

BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ... - Francis Bennion

BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ... - Francis Bennion

BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ... - Francis Bennion

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>BENNI<strong>ON</strong></strong> <strong>ON</strong> <strong>STATUTORY</strong> INTERPRETATI<strong>ON</strong><br />

Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 24, 25 Mar 2010)<br />

This principle was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Switzerland Insurance Australia<br />

Ltd v Mowie Fisheries Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 231 and in Minister of State for Employment<br />

Workplace Relations and Small Business v Community and Public Sector Union [2001] FCA<br />

316„. It was also applied by the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island in Minister for Immigration &<br />

Community Services v Summerscales [2000] NFSC 4 at [37].<br />

Section 389. Expressum facit cessare tacitum<br />

Pages 1249-1250 Relevant Index entry: expressum facit cessare tacitum<br />

Lord Rodger of Earlsferry gave a good example of this principle in Kay v Commissioner of Police<br />

of the Metropolis [2008] UKHL 69 at [42]: „Where the Act contains a specific provision prohibiting<br />

certain processions, there is no room for implying into another provision a requirement which would<br />

have the effect of prohibiting a different type of procession by exposing the organisers to a criminal<br />

conviction and fine‟.<br />

Section 390. Expressio unius principle: description<br />

Page 1250 Relevant Index entry: expressio unius principle:nature of<br />

Code s 390 was relied on in Perrin and another v Northampton Borough Council and others<br />

[2008] EWCA Civ 1353, [2008] 4 All ER 673, at [32].<br />

Section 393. Expressio unius principle: words of extension<br />

Page 1254-1255 Relevant Index entry: reasons, duty to give [New entry, not in fifth edition]<br />

There is no general duty at common law to give reasons for an administrative decision,<br />

especially where statutory duties such as those imposed by the Freedom of Information Act<br />

2000 apply: Hasan v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry [2008] EWCA Civ 1311, [2009]<br />

3 All ER 539.<br />

Page 1255 Relevant Index entry: expressio unius principle:extending words and<br />

Code s. 393 was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Re David Harold Eastman v<br />

Commissioner of Superannuation [1987] FCA 188 at [29]-[30].<br />

Section 397. Implication where statutory description only partly met<br />

Page 1262 Section 397(1) Relevant Index entry: implication:statutory description, partially met, and<br />

See comments on Code s 397(1) by Arden LJ in Roberts v Secretary of State for Social Security<br />

[2001] EWCA Civ 910 at paragraphs 11-14.<br />

Page 1262 Section 397(2) Relevant Index entry: implication:statutory description, partially met, and<br />

Code s 397(2) was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Switzerland Insurance Australia<br />

Ltd v Mowie Fisheries Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 231.<br />

Division Seven. Europe<br />

Part XXIX. Community law and the European Court<br />

Section 404. Legitimate expectation<br />

Pages 1278-1279 Relevant Index entry: decision-making rules:legitimate expectation<br />

„ . . . a claim to a legitimate expectation can be based only upon a promise which is “clear,<br />

unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification”: see Bingham LJ in R v Inland Revenue<br />

www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn<br />

63

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!