Contents of Notes:
1. Rules and authorities 2. Presumptions 3. Extrinsic materials
4. Statutory interpretation framework
Rule Authority
Construction of meaning must always begin by examining the context of the provision being construed
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 at 381 per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ
Words should be interpreted with reference to accompanying words
Noscitur a sociis- the meaning of a word is know from the words that accompany it. E.g. Light (as opposed to heavy) and light (as opposed to dark)
Ejusdem generis- if words of a particular meaning are followed by general words, the general words are limited to the same kind as the particular words.
E.g. In Australian Wills act a Will can be revoked by 'burning, tearing or otherwise destroying' -
'otherwise destroying' must be construed to fall into a similar category to burning or tearing. This would mean, paper shredding would revoke the will, but not scribbling out the word
Maxim 1: R v Ann Harris (1836) 7 Car & P 446; 173 ER 198
Maxim is not that helpful/ conclusive: Dean v wiesengrund [1955] 2 QB 120 – useful servant, dangerous master
Maxim 2: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Clark (2003) 57 NSWLR 113- also hold there must be more than one specific word to create a 'genre' of meaning
Field v Gent (1996) 67 SASR 123
Word should be interpreted with reference to other parts of the legislation
There are rules about which parts of the Act can be considered in the interpretive process
All material from and including the first section of an Act to the end of:
(a) if there are no Schedules to the Act—the last section of the Act; or
(b) if there are one or more Schedules to the Act—
the last Schedule to the Act; is part of the Act.
The following are also part of an Act:
(a) the long title of the Act;
(b) any Preamble to the Act;
(c) the enacting words for the Act;
(d) any heading to a Chapter, Part, Division or Subdivision appearing before the first section of the Act.
PREAMBLES:
If meaning is clear, the words cannot be cut down by reference to the preamble.
s13 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)
Engineer's Case (1920) 28 CLR 129- the court's task, to discover the ordinary and natural meaning of a word, is to be achieved through 'an examination of the language used in the stature as a whole' - per Higgins J
LONG TITLE FOR SCOPE OF THE ACT: Birch v Allen (1942) 65 CLR 621 per Latham CJ
INITIALLY LOOK AT PROVISION IN LIGHT OF PURPOSE OF ACT (including long title): K & S Lake City
Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon & Gotch Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 309; Amatek Ltd v Googoorewon Pty Ltd (1993) 176 CLR 471
PREAMBLE:
Bowtell v Goldsbrough, Mort & Co Ltd (1905) 3 CLR 555 per Griffith CJ; Wacando v Commonwealth (1981) 148 CLR 1
^doesn't mean the preamble can't be used to ascertain purpose
If it is unclear or words may have more than one meaning, you can refer to the preamble to
understand what the law was enacted in response to, or why
Words should be interpreted with reference to the interpretation legislation of the relevant jurisdiction
In the commonwealth this is s2B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) + s2D and s2F
This legislation will often contain definitions of terms that commonly reoccur in legislation:
'commonwealth', 'constitution' 'Executive Council' etc.
S23 of the act also denotes that the interpretation contained in these sections may be replaced by an indication of contrary intention
CONTRARY MEANING: Fordham v Brideson [1986] VR 587; Walsh v Tattersall (1996) 188 CLR 77
Dictionaries may be consulted
Dictionary definitions give way to the context of the word in the legislation, and to the broader context
State Chamber of Commerce and Industry v Commonwealth (1987) 163 CLR 329
CONTEXT: Van der Feltz v City of Stirling (2009) 167 LGERA 236; Norrie v NSW Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (2013) 84 NSWLR 697
Consistent use of words is assumed
Legislation will often use the same words or phrases throughout legislation
It is assumed to have the same meaning throughout, so if it is clearer in another section, it meaning carries to all other sections
Therefore, if different words have been used, a different meaning is intended
Wilson v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (1986) 6 NSWLR 410
All words are assumed to carry meaning
It should be assumed that every word is important to consider
No word should be disregarded as void, insignificant or superfluous
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
Maroondah City Council v Fletcher (2009) 169 LGERA 407; Saeed v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2010) 241 CLR 252; Plaintiff S157/2002 v
Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476 Words should be interpreted in accordance with their
current meaning which may change over time
Apply the current meaning of a word over the meaning it had at the time
Sometimes it is held that the statutory language of the time has an obsolescent quality and so cannot be construed to include modern technologies
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Clark (2003) 57 NSWLR 113; Imperial Chemical Industries of Australia
& New Zealand Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1971) 46 ALJR 35; R v Strawhorn (2008) 19 VR 90
OBSOLESCET QUALITY:
Wilson v Commissioner of Stamp Duties (1988) 13 NSWLR 77
The express meaning of something may draw attention to the absence of something else
CAUTION: Bass v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 334
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius- the express mention of one thing is the exclusion of another
An absence can be significant
The Maxim should be applied with caution
APPLICATION OF MAXIM: CFMEU v Hodgekiss (2007) 169 FCR 151; R v Zuber (2010) 242 FLR 416
