

Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Part of legal systems and methods. Describes the components of a statute.
Typology: Assignments
1 / 3
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!


Also known as the literal rule, It is required that words be given their plain, ordinary or literal meaning. The courts main aim is to ascertain the intention of parliament as expressed in the words used. This approach will be used even if it results in absurdity, in which case the remedy is for parliament to amend the statute. One of the leading statements of the literal rule was made by Tindal CJ in the Sussex Peerage case (1884)11 Olefin85: …the only rule for the Construction of Acts of parliament is, that they should be construed according to the intent of Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such case best declare the intention of the lawgiver. Lord Esher in R V Judge of the City of London Court [1892] 1 QB 273 averred that If the words of an Acta are clear then you must follow them even though they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has committed an absurdity. In Fisher v Bell [1960] 3 All ER 731 The defendant, a shopkeeper, displayed in his window a flick knife with a price ticket, and was prosecuted for “Offering for sale” an offensive weapon contrary to the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. The High Court held that the phrase ‘offers for sale’ was to be taken literally, and be accorded the meaning as in contract law, and that the defendants display of the weapon was no more than an invitation to treat. The court made a presumption that the parliamentary draftsmen knew the technical legal language thus the Common law expression was not altered. In Whitely v Chappell (1869), the defendant casted a vote in the name of a person who had died. The court found the defendant not guilty of personating. The court took the view that the phrase “any person entitled to vote” disentitled the dead person from voting. The plain meaning rule has led to harsh decisions by the courts due to its literal application. In London & North Eastern Railway Company v Berriman(1946)