Extract 1
Three rules of statutory
interpretation
The literal rule
The literal rule gives the words in question their plain, ordinary
dictionary meaning. An example can be seen in the case of
London and North Eastern Railway Co vBerriman (1946). This
case involved a widow claiming compensation for her
husband, who had died at work. He was killed while oiling
points on a railway line. The Fatal Accidents Act 1864
stated that there should be a lookout when workers were
‘relaying’ or ‘repairing’ the track. The court interpreted the
words ‘relaying’ and ‘repairing’ literally and concluded that
oiling was maintenance,not relaying or repairing.
There are a number of advantages and disadvantages to this
rule. It results in a quick decision because the meaning can be
found in a dictionary or other source. It respects parliamentary
supremacy because a judge’sfunction is to apply the words of
Parliament and not to make law. It is also advantageous when
the words under discussion are clear, lacking ambiguity or
broadness. However,there are a number of disadvantages: it
can produce absurd outcomes, create injustice and result in
outcomes that do not match parliamentary intentions.
The golden rule
The golden rule is a variation on the literal rule. The golden
rule can be used in two ways: the narrow and the wide
approach.
•
The narrow approach occurs when a word has multiple
meanings. The judge selects one meaning that best fits
the situation. This approach is illustrated in the case of
RvAllen (1872). This case involved the word ‘marry’. The
court noted that there were two primary meanings of this
word. The first involved a legal commitment to another
person and the second meant being involved in a
ceremony. It was noted by the judges that the first
meaning would create a loophole — since the second
marriage would be void, it would be impossible to
commit bigamy in a criminal sense. Therefore, the court
was prepared to read ‘marry’ as ‘to go through a
ceremony of marriage’.
•
The wide approach is adopted when the meaning of a word
would result in a ridiculous or repugnant outcome. This is
illustrated in Re Sigsworth (1935). In this case, a son had
murdered his mother.She had not made a will so, as the
next of kin, he would inherit the estate. The wording of the
Act in question was clear and if the courts applied the literal
rule the son would inherit the estate. However,the courts
were not prepared to allow this to happen, so the wider
approach of the golden rule was adopted.
30
Statutory interpretation
