BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Introductory Since its first publication in 1984 Bennion on Statutory Interpretation (‘the work’) has
been expressly updated each year by the Statute Law chapter in the All England Law Reports Annual
Review, written by Francis Bennion. The practice has been in time to use these chapters in compiling
an updating Supplement to the work, and later in producing the next edition. However in the volume
of the All England Law Reports Annual Review for 2008, published in the spring of 2009, the Statute
Law chapter was instead written by Dr Kay Goodall and Mr Ian McLeod. They departed from the
previous practice by writing the 2008 Statute Law chapter in a form which did not expressly update
the work.
In these circumstances, for the assistance of users of the work, these unofficial notes, titled Fifth
Edition Updating Notes, are prepared on an ongoing basis by Francis Bennion with the agreement of
the publishers. They continuously update the work by giving information on new or newly-discovered
cases, articles etc relating to matters dealt with in the fifth edition. They do not form part of the work
and are the copyright of Francis Bennion rather than the publishers.
References in such cases, etc. to previous editions of the work are converted so that they refer to the
corresponding passage in the fifth edition. Cases, etc. referred to in the Fifth Edition Updating Notes
can be accessed on BAILII, CommonLII or similar portals.
The Fifth Edition Updating Notes begin with a list of Updated Material. This comprises sections etc.
of the work that are updated in what follows, giving page numbers of the Fifth Edition Updating
Notes. To access a page click on the page number.
Next follows a Table of Statutes referred to in the Fifth Edition Updating Notes and a Table of Cases
referred to therein.
In the main body of the Fifth Edition Updating Notes the page numbers refer to the fifth edition of the
work.
At the end is an Index to the Fifth Edition Updating Notes using entries corresponding to those in the
fifth edition Index together with new entries required by material in the Fifth Edition Updating Notes.
The Index to the Fifth Edition Updating Notes is continuously updated as new versions of the notes
are produced.
For copyright information about the Fifth Edition Updating Notes and details about permission to use
see www.francisbennion.com/pages/01/09/copyright.htm.
For disclaimer see www.francisbennion.com/disclaimer.htm.
Updated Material
For disclaimer see www.francisbennion.com/disclaimer.htm. ............................................................ 1
Updated Material .................................................................................................................................. 1
Table of Statutes.................................................................................................................................... 6
Table of Cases........................................................................................................................................ 7
Other Countries .................................................................................................................................. 11
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 16
Division One. Interpreter, Instrument and Enactment ................................................................... 16
Part I. The Interpreter ....................................................................................................................... 16
Section 1. To ‘construe’ or ‘interpret’? ............................................................................................ 16
Section 2. Interpreter’s duty to arrive at legal meaning.................................................................. 16
Section 3. Real doubt as to legal meaning ......................................................................................... 16
Section 8. Duty to obey legislation ..................................................................................................... 16
Section 9. Ignorantia juris neminem excusat ..................................................................................... 16
Section 10. Mandatory and directory requirements ........................................................................ 17
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
1
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Section 12. Where contracting out and waiver not allowed ............................................................ 18
Section 14. Civil sanction for disobedience (the tort of breach of statutory duty) ........................ 18
Section 15. Administrative or executive agencies ............................................................................. 18
Section 17. Investigating agencies ...................................................................................................... 18
Section 18. Prosecuting agencies ........................................................................................................ 18
Section 19. Courts and other adjudicating authorities .................................................................... 19
Section 20. Interpretation by adjudicating authorities .................................................................... 19
Section 21. Doctrine of judicial notice ............................................................................................... 20
Section 23. Adjudicating authorities with appellate jurisdiction.................................................... 20
Section 26. Dynamic processing of legislation by courts and other enforcement agencies........... 20
Section 28. Types of Act...................................................................................................................... 21
Part II. The Instrument to be Interpreted: Acts of Parliament ...................................................... 21
Section 28. Types of Act...................................................................................................................... 21
Section 32. Overriding effect of an Act ............................................................................................. 21
Section 33. Uniqueness of an Act ....................................................................................................... 21
Section 34. Whether an Act binds the Crown: the doctrine of Crown immunity ......................... 21
Section 38. Royal assent (signification) ............................................................................................. 21
Section 45. Settling of text of Act and promulgation ....................................................................... 22
Section 48. Nature of a prerogative instrument ............................................................................... 22
Part III. The Instrument to be Interpreted: Subordinate Legislation ........................................... 22
Section 50. Nature of delegated legislation ....................................................................................... 22
Section 51. Parliamentary control of delegated legislation ............................................................. 22
Section 58. Ultra vires delegated legislation ..................................................................................... 22
Section 59. Delegated legislation: the rule of primary intention ..................................................... 23
Section 65. Types of delegated legislation: (5) byelaws .................................................................... 23
Section 66. Types of delegated legislation: (6) other instruments ................................................... 23
Part IV. Commencement, Amendment and Repeal of Acts ............................................................ 23
Section 78. Textual amendment ......................................................................................................... 23
Section 81. Amendment by delegated legislation ............................................................................. 23
Section 83. References to an amended enactment ............................................................................ 24
Section 85. Meaning of ‘repeal’ ......................................................................................................... 24
Section 87. Implied repeal .................................................................................................................. 24
Section 87. Implied repeal .................................................................................................................. 24
Section 88. Generalia specialibus non derogant ............................................................................... 24
Section 89. Savings on repeal ............................................................................................................. 24
Section 96. Transitional provisions on repeal, amendment etc ....................................................... 25
Section 97. Presumption against retrospective operation ............................................................... 25
Section 98. Retrospective operation: procedural provisions ........................................................... 25
Part V. Extent and Application of Acts............................................................................................. 25
Section 103. The ‘extent’ of an Act .................................................................................................... 25
Section 104. Uniform meaning throughout area of extent .............................................................. 25
Section 105. Composition of an enactment’s territory .................................................................... 25
Section 128. General principles as to application............................................................................. 26
Section 129. Application to foreigners and foreign matters within the territory .......................... 26
Section 131. Application to Britons and British matters outside the territory .............................. 26
Section 133. Deemed location of an omission ................................................................................... 26
Section 134. Deemed location of composite act or composite omission .......................................... 26
Part VI. The Enactment and the Facts ............................................................................................. 27
Section 136. Applying the enactment to the facts ............................................................................. 27
Section 139. Selective comminution................................................................................................... 27
Section 142. Drafting presumed competent ...................................................................................... 27
Section 144. The legal thrust .............................................................................................................. 27
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
2
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Section 146. Proof of relevant facts ................................................................................................... 27
Section 149. Opposing constructions of an enactment 429 .............................................................. 27
Division Two. The Legal Meaning of an Enactment........................................................................ 28
Part VII. Grammatical and Strained Constructions ....................................................................... 28
Section 150. Nature of the legal meaning .......................................................................................... 28
Section 158. When strained construction needed ............................................................................. 28
Part VIII. Legislative Intention ......................................................................................................... 28
Section 163: Legislative intention as the paramount criterion ....................................................... 28
Section 164. Is legislative intention fictitious? .................................................................................. 28
Section 166. The duplex approach to legislative intention .............................................................. 28
Section 171. Intention distinguished from motive ............................................................................ 28
Part IX. Filling in the Textual Detail................................................................................................. 29
Section 172. Nature of a legislative implication ................................................................................ 29
Section 173. Is it legitimate to draw implications? ........................................................................... 29
Section 174. When legislative implications are legitimate ............................................................... 29
Section 175. When legislative implications affect related law ......................................................... 30
Section 177. Interstitial articulation (general) .................................................................................. 30
Part IX. Filling in the Textual Detail................................................................................................. 30
Section 179. Interstitial articulation by the court ............................................................................ 30
Part X. Interpretative Criteria and Interpretative Factors ............................................................ 30
Section 182. Strict and liberal construction ...................................................................................... 30
Section 185. Interpretative factors all pointing one way ................................................................. 31
Division Three. Rules of Construction .............................................................................................. 31
Part XI. Rules of Construction (General) ......................................................................................... 31
Section 192. Nature of rules of construction ..................................................................................... 31
Section 193. Basic rule of statutory interpretation .......................................................................... 31
Section 197. The commonsense construction rule ............................................................................ 31
Section 198. The rule ut res magis valeat quam pereat ................................................................... 32
Part XII Rules of Construction Laid Down by Statute ................................................................... 32
Section 199. Statutory definitions ...................................................................................................... 32
Section 200. The Interpretation Act 1978 ......................................................................................... 33
Part XIII. The Informed Interpretation Rule (General) ................................................................. 33
Section 201. Statement of the rule ..................................................................................................... 33
Section 205. Interpreter’s need for legal knowledge ........................................................................ 33
Section 210. The pre-Act law ............................................................................................................. 33
Section 211. Consolidation Acts ......................................................................................................... 34
Section 213. Meaning of enacting history ......................................................................................... 34
Section 217. Use of Hansard ............................................................................................................... 34
Section 220. Special restriction on parliamentary materials (the exclusionary rule) ................... 35
Section 221. Use of international treaties .......................................................................................... 35
Section 231. The basic rule ................................................................................................................. 35
Section 232. Use of official statements on meaning of Act............................................................... 35
Section 233. Use of delegated legislation made under Act ............................................................... 35
Section 234. Use of later Acts in pari materia .................................................................................. 35
Section 235. Use of judicial decisions on Act .................................................................................... 36
Section 238. Statement of the rule ..................................................................................................... 36
Section 242. The proviso ..................................................................................................................... 36
Part XV. The Functional Construction Rule .................................................................................... 36
Section 245. The long title .................................................................................................................. 36
Section 247. The purpose clause 734 ................................................................................................. 36
Section 255. Heading........................................................................................................................... 36
Section 256. Section name (sidenote, heading or title) ..................................................................... 37
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
3
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Section 257. Format ............................................................................................................................ 37
Section 258. Punctuation .................................................................................................................... 37
Section 259. Nature of incorporation by reference .......................................................................... 37
Section 260. Archival drafting ........................................................................................................... 37
Division Four. Interpretative Principles Derived from Legal Policy ............................................. 37
Part XVI. Interpretative Principles (General) ................................................................................. 37
Section 263. Nature of legal policy..................................................................................................... 37
Section 264. Law should serve the public interest............................................................................ 38
Section 265. Law should be just and fair .......................................................................................... 38
Section 266. Law should be certain and predictable ........................................................................ 38
Section 267. Law should not operate retrospectively ....................................................................... 38
Section 268. Law should be coherent and self-consistent ................................................................ 38
Section 269. Law should not be subject to casual change ................................................................ 38
Section 270. Municipal law should conform to international law................................................... 39
Part XVII. Principle against doubtful penalisation ......................................................................... 39
Section 271. Principle against penalisation under a doubtful law .................................................. 39
Section 273. Statutory restraint of the person .................................................................................. 39
Section 278. Statutory interference with economic interests........................................................... 40
Section 281. Statutory interference with rights of legal process ..................................................... 40
Division Five. Interpretative Presumptions Based on the Nature of Legislation .......................... 40
Part XVIII. Interpretative Presumptions (General) ........................................................................ 40
Section 285. Presumption that literal meaning to be followed ........................................................ 40
Section 286. Presumption that consequential construction to be given ......................................... 40
Section 287. Presumption that rectifying construction to be given ................................................ 41
Section 288. Presumption that updating construction to be given ................................................. 41
Part XIX. The Mischief and its Remedy ........................................................................................... 42
Section 294. Party-political mischiefs ................................................................................................ 42
This topic is further dealt with in FB’s 2008 article ‘Law-Churning and the Sociologists’. ........ 42
Part XX. Purposive Construction ...................................................................................................... 42
Section 304. Nature of purposive construction ................................................................................. 42
Section 305. Purposive-and-literal construction............................................................................... 43
Section 306. Purposive-and-strained construction ........................................................................... 43
Part XXI. Construction Against ‘Absurdity’ ................................................................................... 43
Section 312. Presumption that ‘absurd’ result not intended........................................................... 43
Section 313. Avoiding an unworkable or impracticable result ....................................................... 43
Section 314. Avoiding an inconvenient result ................................................................................... 44
Section 315. Avoiding an anomalous or illogical result ................................................................... 44
Section 316. Avoiding a futile or pointless result ............................................................................. 44
Section 317. Avoiding an artificial result .......................................................................................... 44
See entry for pp 969-1008 s. 312-318 ‘absurdity’ above. ................................................................. 44
Section 318. Avoiding a disproportionate counter-mischief ........................................................... 44
Part XXII. Construction Against Evasion ........................................................................................ 44
Section 319. Presumption that evasion not to be allowed ................................................................ 44
Section 320. Evasion distinguished from avoidance......................................................................... 45
Section 322. Methods of evasion: doing indirectly what must not be done directly ..................... 45
Section 324. Methods of evasion: repetitious acts ............................................................................ 45
Section 326. Construction which otherwise defeats legislative purpose ......................................... 45
Part XXIII. Application of Ancillary Rules of Law ......................................................................... 45
Section 327. Presumption that ancillary rules of law apply ............................................................ 45
Section 329. Presumption that public law decision-making rules apply ........................................ 46
Section 330. Presumption that rules of equity apply ....................................................................... 46
Section 331. Presumption that rules of contract law apply ............................................................. 46
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
4
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Section 332. Presumption that rules of property law apply ............................................................ 47
Section 334. Presumption that rules of criminal law apply ............................................................. 47
Section 335. Rules of evidence............................................................................................................ 47
Part XXIV.Application of Ancillary Legal Maxims ........................................................................ 48
Section 342. Double detriment: bona fides non patitur, ut his eadem exigatur ............................... 48
Section 343. De minimis principle: de minimis non curat lex ......................................................... 48
Section 346. Impossibility: lex non cogit ad impossibilia................................................................. 48
Section 347. Necessity: necessitas non habet legem .......................................................................... 49
Section 350. Presumption of correctness: omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta ......... 49
Section 351. Agency:qui facit per alium facit per se .......................................................................... 49
Section 352. Vigilance: vigilantibus non dormientibus leges subveniunt....................................... 49
Section 353. Volenti principle: volenti non fit injuria ...................................................................... 49
Division Six. Linguistic Canons of Construction.............................................................................. 49
Part XXV. Linguistic Canons of Construction: General................................................................. 49
Section 355. Construction of Act or other instrument as a whole .................................................. 49
Part XXVII. Linguistic Canons of Construction: Interpretation of Particular Words and
Phrases ................................................................................................................................................. 50
Section 363. Ordinary meaning of words and phrases .................................................................... 50
Section 364. Composite expressions .................................................................................................. 50
Section 365. Technical terms (general) ............................................................................................. 51
Section 366. Technical legal terms ..................................................................................................... 51
Section 367. Technical non-legal terms ............................................................................................. 51
Section 369. Neologisms and slang..................................................................................................... 51
Section 373. Homonyms...................................................................................................................... 51
Section 375. Judicial notice of meaning ............................................................................................ 51
Part XXVIII. Linguistic Canons of Construction: Elaboration of Meaning of Words and
Phrases ................................................................................................................................................. 51
Section 378. Noscitur a sociis principle.............................................................................................. 52
Section 384. Ejusdem generis principle:general words followed by narrower genus-describing
terms ..................................................................................................................................................... 52
Section 388. Reddendo singula singulis principle ............................................................................ 52
Section 389. Expressum facit cessare tacitum 1249 ......................................................................... 52
Section 390. Expressio unius principle: description ......................................................................... 52
Section 393. Expressio unius principle: words of extension ............................................................ 52
Section 397. Implication where statutory description only partly met .......................................... 52
Division Seven. Europe ....................................................................................................................... 53
Part XXIX. Community law and the European Court .................................................................... 53
Section 404. Legitimate expectation .................................................................................................. 53
Section 412. Transposing of Community law ................................................................................... 53
Section 413. Effect of Community law on UK enactments .............................................................. 53
Section 417. Remedies against Member States ................................................................................. 53
Part XXX. Human Rights Act 1998 .................................................................................................. 53
Section 419. Nature of the Convention rights ................................................................................... 53
Section 422. Judicial declaration of incompatibility (primary legislation) .................................... 53
Section 426. Ministers’ statements of compatibility regarding Bills .............................................. 54
Section 443. Article 5 of Convention (right to liberty and security) ............................................... 54
Section 455. Article 1 of First Protocol (protection of property) .................................................... 54
Section 463. Meaning of ‘the Convention’. ....................................................................................... 54
Appendix H Some responses to Code s 288 (updating construction) ............................................. 55
II - Updating Construction and Common Law ................................................................................ 55
INDEX TO UPDATING NOTES ...................................................................................................... 56
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
5
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Table of Statutes
United Kingdom Statutes
Animals Act 1971 ................................................................................................................................. 49
Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 ..................................................... 30
Communications Act 2003 ................................................................................................................... 54
Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 ..................................................................................................... 19
Criminal Justice Act 1988 ..................................................................................................................... 39
Criminal Justice Act 1991 ..................................................................................................................... 54
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 ................................................................................... 21, 26
Criminal Law Act 1967 ........................................................................................................................ 38
Defamation Act 1996 ...................................................................................................................... 17, 47
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 ................................................................................ 27
European Communities Act 1972 ......................................................................................................... 23
Extradition Act 2003 ............................................................................................................................. 40
Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 .................................................................................................... 33
Gaming Act 1968 .................................................................................................................................. 48
Hunting Act 2004.................................................................................................................................. 48
Limitation Act 1980 .............................................................................................................................. 53
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 ...................................................................... 48
Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 ................................................................................................ 19
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ................................................................................................................. 17
Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 .................................................................................................... 29
Road Traffic Act 1988 .......................................................................................................................... 53
Supreme Court Act 1981 ...................................................................................................................... 30
Terrorism Act 2000 ............................................................................................................................... 39
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 ............................................................................................................. 18
Statutes of other Common Law Countries
[Australia] Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) ............................................................................................. 16
[Ireland] Interpretation Act 2005 .......................................................................................................... 33
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
6
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Table of Cases
United Kingdom
[1999] NISSCSC C55/99-00(IB) .......................................................................................................... 43
A and others v HM Treasury [2008] EWCA Civ 1187, [2009] 2 All ER 747 ................................ 23, 48
A and others v HM Treasury [2009] 2 All ER 747, [2008] EWCA Civ 1187 ...................................... 39
A v B (Investigatory Powers Tribunal: jurisdiction) [2008] EWHC 1512 (Admin), [2008] 4 All ER
511 .................................................................................................................................................... 19
A v Hoare and other appeals [2008] UKHL 6, [2008] 2 All ER 1 ................................................. 21, 34
AG’s Reference 004/2003 under s 36 of Criminal Justice Act 1988 v Suchedina [2004] EWCA Crim
1944, [2005] 1 WLR 1574 ................................................................................................................ 39
Aiden Shipping Co v Interbulk [1986] AC 965 ..................................................................................... 29
Aribisala v St James Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd. [2007] EWHC 1694 (Ch) ................................... 18
B Osborn & Co Ltd v Dior [2003] EWCA Civ 281.............................................................................. 43
BBC Scotland v Souster [2001] IRLR 150, [2000] ScotCS 308 ........................................................... 34
Beoku-Betts v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 39, [2008] 4 All ER 1146 44
Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v Dorset County Council [2007] EWHC 365 (Ch), [2007] 2
All ER 1000 ...................................................................................................................................... 25
Billig, Re Application for Judicial Review [2006] ScotCS CSOH_148 ................................................ 32
Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd and another [2008] EWHC 1756 (Ch), [20009] 1 All ER
517 .................................................................................................................................................... 26
Bowers v Gloucester Corporation [1963] 1 QB 881 ............................................................................ 39
Briere v Hailstone [1968] 112 SJ 767................................................................................................... 48
BW, Re Judicial Review [2007] NICA 44 ............................................................................................. 22
Council for the Regulation of Health Care Professionals v General Medical Council & Anor [2004]
EWHC 527 (Admin) ......................................................................................................................... 39
Crofts & Ors v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ 599 ........................................ 39
Cummings v Granger [1977] QB 397 ................................................................................................... 49
Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 432, [2008] 3 All ER 923.......................... 17, 38
Dale Farm Dairy Group Ltd (t/a Northern Dairies) v Akram & Ors [1997] EWCA Civ 2125 ........... 29
Davidson, Re Application For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 293 .............................................. 25, 30
Director of Public Prosecutions v Wright [2009] EWHC 105 (Admin)............................................... 48
Dolphin Quays Development Ltd v Mills and others [2008] EWCA Civ 385, [2008] 4 All ER 56 ..... 30
East Devon District Council v Electoral Commission (The Boundary Committee for England) [2009]
EWHC 4 (Admin) ............................................................................................................................. 33
Electricity Supply Assoc of Australia Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2001]
FCA 1296 .......................................................................................................................................... 29
Elizabeth Court (Bournemouth) Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKSPC SPC00648 ................ 32, 37
Etame v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2008] EWHC 1140 (Admin) ............. 33
ETI Euro Telecom International NV v Republic of Bolivia & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 880 ............... 36
Faulkner & Ors v BT Northern Ireland & Ors [2005] NIIT 3933_01 ................................................. 26
Financial Times Ltd v Bishop [2003] UKEAT 0147_03_2511 ............................................................ 25
Fletcher (Executrix of the estate of Carl Fletcher (deceased) v A Train & Sons Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ
413, [2008] 4 All ER 699 .................................................................................................................. 20
George Wimpey UK Ltd v Tewkesbury Borough Council (MA Holdings Ltd intervening) [2008 EWCA
Civ 12, [2008] 3 All ER 859 ............................................................................................................. 40
Giles v Rhind [2008] EWCA Civ 118, [2008] 3 All ER 697 .......................................................... 28, 38
Glasgow City Council v AD [2005] ScotSC 35 .................................................................................... 17
Gordon, Re Application for Judicial Review [2006] NIQB 20 ............................................................. 39
Goshawk Dedicated (No 2) Ltd v The Bank of Scotland [2005] EWHC 2906 (Ch) ............................. 17
Green & Green Scaffolding Ltd v Staines Magistrates’ Court [2008] EWHC 1443 (Admin) ............. 47
Halcyon Films LLP v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKSPC SPC00696 ............................................... 35
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
7
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Hampstead Heath Winter Swimming Club & Anor v Corporation of London & Anor [2005] EWHC
713 (Admin) ...................................................................................................................................... 46
Hanchett-Stamford v Attorney General and another [2008] EWHC 330 (Ch), [2008] 4 All ER 323. 20,
54
Hanoman v London Borough of Southwark [2008] EWCA Civ 624.................................................... 49
Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 175 ..................... 24, 50
HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai and Another (2006) 9 HKCFAR 574 ........................................................ 31
HM Revenue & Customs v Dunwood Travel Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 174 ............................................ 23
Holis Metal Industries Ltd v GMB & Anor [2007] UKEAT 0171_07_1212 ........................................ 26
Home Department v Nasseri [2009] 1 All ER 116 ............................................................................... 16
Housden and another v Conservators of Wimbledon and Putney Commons [2008] EWCA Civ 200,
[2008] 3 All ER 1038.................................................................................................................. 20, 45
Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Secretary For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [2000] EWCA
Civ 13 .................................................................................................................................... 22, 24, 28
James, Re An Application for Judicial Review [2005] NIQB 38 .................................................... 43, 50
Johnston Publishing (North) Ltd & Ors v Revenue & Customs [2006] UKSPC SPC00564 ................ 33
Kay v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2008] UKHL 69 ............................................... 27, 52
Kennet District Council v Young & Ors [1998] EWHC Admin 938 .................................................... 26
Kensington International Ltd. v Republic of the Congo [2007] EWHC 1632 (Comm) ........................ 25
King, Re Application for Judicial Review [2002] NICA 48.................................................................. 46
Kirk v Walton [2008] EWHC 1780 (QB), [2009] 1 All ER 257 ........................................................... 19
KJM Superbikes Limited v Hinton [2008] EWCA Civ 1280 ................................................................ 19
Knowsley Housing Trust v White [2008] UKHL 70 ............................................................................. 40
Langley v Preston Crown Court & Ors [2008] EWHC 2623 (Admin) ................................................ 18
Legal Services Commission v Rasool [2008] 3 All ER 381, [2008] EWCA Civ 154 ........................... 27
Lessex Ltd v HM Inspector of Taxes [2003] UKSC SPC00391 ............................................................ 41
Lewisham London Borough Council v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43, [2008] 4 All ER 525 ................... 34
London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 763 ......................................... 46
Lt. Col. S N Saggar Ministry of Defence [2004] UKEAT 1385_01_1006............................................ 48
Majorstake Ltd v Curtis [2008] UKHL 10, [2008] 2 All ER 303 ......................................................... 50
Marks & Spencer plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2009] UKHL 8 ................................. 53
Martin, Application for judicial review [2000] NIQB 8 ....................................................................... 38
Mason v Boscawen [2008] EWHC 3100 (Ch) at [40]........................................................................... 44
Mason v Boscawen [2008] EWHC 3100 (Ch) at [52]........................................................................... 42
Mason v Boscawen [2008] EWHC 3100 (Ch) at [54]........................................................................... 44
Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Withers LLP [2008] 3 All ER 417, [2007] EWHC 2733 (Ch) ................... 27
McNally v Secretary Of State For Education & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 332 .................................... 46
Medcalf v Weatherill and Another [2002] UKHL 27 at [20] ................................................................ 23
Midlands Co-Operative Society Ltd v HM Revenue & Customs [2008] EWCA Civ 305 .................... 49
Moore v Scottish Daily Record & Sunday Mail Ltd [2007] ScotCS CSOH_24 ............................. 46, 47
N & Anor, Re Application for Judicial Review [2005] NIQB 75.......................................................... 23
O'Byrne v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [1996] EWCA Civ 499
.......................................................................................................................................................... 24
Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 308 ........................... 22, 25
Okandeji v Bow Street Magistrates Court & Ors [2005] EWHC 2925 (Admin) ................................. 19
Omagh District Council, Re Judicial Review [2007] NIQB 61 ............................................................ 50
Optos Plc v Revenue & Customs [2006] UKSPC SPC00560 ............................................................... 32
Oyarce v Cheshire County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 434, [2008] 4 All ER 907.............................. 23
Palm Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWHC
220 (Admin) ................................................................................................................................ 50, 51
Perrin and another v Northampton Borough Council and others [2008] EWCA Civ 1353, [2008] 4
All ER 673 ............................................................................................................................ 30, 39, 52
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
8
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Pilling and others v Reynolds and another [2008] EWHC 316 (QB), [2009] 1 All ER 163 ................ 50
Procter & Gamble UK v Revenue & Customs [2008] EWHC 1558 (Ch) ............................................ 51
Procurator Fiscal, Aberdeen v Aberdeen City Council [1999] ScotHC 176 ........................................ 43
Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1997] IEHC 181; [1998] 2 IR 113 ........................... 25, 32
Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1998] 2 IR 113 ......................................................... 25, 31
R (Bhatt Murphy) v The Independent Assessor [2008] EWCA Civ 755............................................... 46
R (on the application of A) v Westminster City Council [1997] EWCA Civ 1032 ............................... 41
R (on the application of AC) v Birmingham City Council [2008] EWHC 3036 (Admin), at [2] .......... 20
R (on the application of AM (Cameroon)) v Asylum & Immigration Tribunal & Anor [2008] EWCA
Civ 100, [2008] 4 All ER 1159 ......................................................................................................... 46
R (On The Application of Animal Defenders International v Secretary of State For Culture, Media
and Sport [2008] 2 WLR 781, [2008] UKHL 15 .............................................................................. 54
R (on the application of Association of British Travel Agents Ltd (ABTA)) v Civil Aviation Authority
(CAA) & Anor [2006] EWHC 13 (Admin) ....................................................................................... 47
R (on the application of AW) v London Borough of Croydon [2005] EWHC 2950 (QB) .................... 50
R (on the application of Baiai and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Nos 1 and
2) [2008] UKHL 53, [2008] 3 All ER 1094...................................................................................... 30
R (On The Application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs
[2008] UKHL 61, [2008] 3 WLR 955 ............................................................................ 22, 26, 53, 54
R (on the application of Bapio Action Ltd & Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department &
Anor [2008] UKHL 27 .......................................................................................................... 18, 21, 35
R (on the application of Black) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 359,
[2008] 4 All ER 151.......................................................................................................................... 54
R (on the application of Bradley and Others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008]
EWCA Civ36, [2008] 3 All ER 1116 ............................................................................................... 19
R (on the application of Corner House and another) v Director of Serious Fraud Office (BAE Systems
plc, interested party) [2008] EWHC, 714 (Admin); [2008] UKHL 60; [2008] 4 All ER 927 ........ 19
R (on the application of Corner House and another) v Director of Serious Fraud Office (BAE Systems
plc, interested party) [2008] EWHC, 714 (Admin); [2008] UKHL 60; [2008] 4 All ER 927 ......... 19
R (on the application of D) v Life Sentence Review Commissioners [2008] UKHL 33, [2008] 4 All ER
992 .................................................................................................................................................... 47
R (on the application of Dwr Cymru Cyf) v Environment Agency [2009] EWHC 453 (Admin), [2009]
2 All ER 919 ..................................................................................................................................... 46
R (on the application of Etame) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another [2008]
EWHC 1140 (Admin) ........................................................................................................... 34, 44, 53
R (on the application of G) v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2008] EWCA Civ 28, [2008]
4 All ER 594 ..................................................................................................................................... 39
R (on the application of Gilboy) v Liverpool City Council [2008] EWCA Civ 751, [2008] 4 All ER
127 .................................................................................................................................................... 20
R (on the application of Guest v DPP [2009] EWHC 594; [2009] Crim. L. R. 730 ............................ 19
R (on the application of Hammersmith & Fulham LBC & Ors v Secretary Of State For Health [1998]
EWCA Civ 1300 ............................................................................................................................... 41
R (on the application of Hammersmith & Fulham LBC and others v Secretary of State for Health
[1997] EWHC Admin 658 ................................................................................................................ 41
R (on the application of Heffernan) v Rent Service [2008] UKHL 58, [2009] 1 All ER 173 ............... 32
R (on the application of Irving) v Secretary of State for Transport [2008] EWHC 1200 (Admin) ...... 53
R (on the application of Kelly and another) v Secretary of State for Justice, Re: Gibson [2008] EWCA
Civ 177, [2008] 3 All ER 844 ........................................................................................................... 41
R (on the application of Lightfoot) v Lord Chancellor [1998] EWHC Admin 827 .............................. 22
R (on the application of M) v Slough Borough Council [2008] UKHL 52, [2008] 4 All ER 831 ........ 50
R (on the application of Mahamed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC
1312 (Admin) .................................................................................................................................... 34
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
9
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
R (on the application of Newcastle City Council) v Berwick-Upon-Tweed Borough Council & Ors
[2008] EWHC 2369 (Admin) ........................................................................................................... 18
R (on the application of Perry & Anor v Secretary Of State For Social Security & Anor [1998] EWCA
Civ 1117 ............................................................................................................................................ 37
R (on the application of Sarwar & Anor,) v Secretary Of State For Social Security [1996] EWCA Civ
801 .................................................................................................................................................... 23
R (on the application of Secretary Of State For Home Department) v Burke [1998] EWHC Admin
913 .............................................................................................................................................. 22, 24
R (on the application of Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and another) v Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Government (Shropshire County Council, interested party) [2008]
EWCA Civ 148, [2008] 3 All ER 548 ........................................................................................ 21, 34
R (on the application of SK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 1204,
[2009] 2 All ER 365.......................................................................................................................... 40
R (on the application of Warden and Fellows of Winchester College and another) v Hampshire
County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 431, [2008] 3 All ER 717 ........................................................ 48
R (on the application of Wright and others) v Secretary of State for Health and another [2009] UKHL
3, [2009] 2 All ER 129 ...................................................................................................................... 54
R (on the application of) Attwood v Health Service Commissioner [2008] EWHC 2315 (Admin),
[2009] 1 All ER 415.......................................................................................................................... 18
R v A [2008] EWCA Crim 2908, [2009] 2 All ER 898......................................................................... 48
R v B [2000] EWCA Crim 42 ............................................................................................................... 17
R v BR [2003] EWCA Crim 2199 ......................................................................................................... 20
R v Cartwright [2007] EWCA Crim 2581 ............................................................................................ 25
R v Chargot Ltd( t/a Contract Services) and others [2008] UKHL 73, [2009] 2 All ER 645 .............. 18
R v Christopher Bristol [2007] EWCA Crim 3214............................................................................... 17
R v Cockburn [2008] EWCA Crim 316; [2008] 2 All ER 1153 ........................................................... 42
R v Ikram and another [2008] EWCA Crim 586, [2008] 4 All ER 253 ............................................... 27
R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, Ex p MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545, 156953
R v K [2008] EWCA Crim 185, [2008] 3 All ER 525 .......................................................................... 39
R v Kelly [2008] 2 All ER 840, [2008] EWCA Crim 137..................................................................... 48
R v Marsham, ex p Lawrence [1912] 2 KB 263.................................................................................... 47
R v Morgan, R v Bygrave [2008] EWCA Crim 1323, [2008] 4 All ER 890 ......................................... 44
R v Murray & Anor [2006] NICA 33 .................................................................................................... 27
R v Rahman, R v Mohammed [2008] EWCA Crim 1465, [2008] 4 All ER 661 ................................... 17
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex p Spath Holme Limited
[2001] 2 AC 349 ............................................................................................................................... 24
R v T [2008] EWCA Crim 815 ............................................................................................................. 39
R v Zafar and others [2008] EWCA Crim 184, [2008] 4 All ER 46 .................................................... 35
R. v Athwal [2009] EWCA Crim 789; [2009] Crim L. R. 726 ............................................................. 47
R. v S and I [2009] EWCA Com 85; [2009] Crim. LR 723 .................................................................. 49
Re An Application for Judicial Review, Landlords Association for Northern Ireland [2005] NIQB 22
.......................................................................................................................................................... 39
Re An Application for Judicial Review, Landlords Association for Northern Ireland, [2005] NIQB 22
.......................................................................................................................................................... 40
Re Application by Local Government Auditor [2005] NIQB 52........................................................... 23
Re Application by the Local Government Auditor [2003] NIQB 21 ............................................... 29, 37
Re B (children) (sexual abuse: standard of proof) [2008] UKHL 35, [2008] 4 All ER 1 .............. 27, 47
Re Hilali [2008] UKHL 3, [2008] 2 All ER 207................................................................................... 40
Re Mary Robertson [2001] ScotCS 94.................................................................................................. 49
Re Metronet Rail BCV Ltd (In PPP Administration) [2007] EWHC 2697 (Ch), [2008] 2 All ER 75.. 20
Re N (A Child) [2008] EWHC 2042 (Fam)........................................................................................... 19
Re Scottish Water [2004] ScotsCS 41 ................................................................................................... 42
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
10
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Re Secretary To the Department of Health v Kathryn June Ryan [1986] FCA 261 ............................. 16
re UK Waste Management[1999] NICA 2; [1999] NI 183 ................................................................... 29
Re WD [2007] ScotCS CSOH_139 ....................................................................................................... 44
Revenue & Customs v BUPA Purchasing Ltd & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 542 ..................................... 46
Revenue & Customs v Premier Foods Ltd. [2007] EWHC 3134 (Ch) ................................................. 33
Revenue & Customs v Walsh [2005] EWCA Civ 1291 ........................................................................ 39
Roberts v Secretary of State for Social Security [2001] EWCA Civ 910 ....................................... 48, 52
Ruttle Plant Ltd v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (No 2) [2008] EWHC
238 (TCC), [2009] 1 All ER 448 ...................................................................................................... 38
Scottish & Newcastle plc v Raguz [2008] UKHL 65, [2009] 1 All ER 763 ......................................... 35
Scottish & Newcastle plc v Raguz [2008] UKHL 65, [2009] 1 All ER 763 where Lord Hoffmann .... 43
Secretary of State for the Home Department v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWHC Admin
261 .................................................................................................................................................... 51
Sekhon & Ors v R [2002] EWCA Crim 2954 ....................................................................................... 17
Serco Ltd. v Lawson [2004] EWCA Civ 12 .......................................................................................... 26
Serious Fraud Office v [2009] UKHL 17, [2009] 2 All ER 223........................................................... 25
Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and Anor v Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government and Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 148 ................................................................................. 22
Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Poets Chase Freehold Co Ltd [2007] EWHC 1776
(Ch), [2008] 2 All ER 187 .......................................................................................................... 41, 46
Smith v Northamptonshire County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 181, [2008] 3 All ER 1054 ............... 18
Sonea v Mehedinti District Court, Romania [2009] EWHC 89 (Admin), [2009] 2 All ER 821 .......... 42
Spencer v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] EWCA Civ 750, [2009] 1 All ER 314 ... 53
Spencer-Franks v Kellogg Brown and Root Ltd and others [2008] UKHL 46, [2009] 1 All ER 269 .. 53
Stubbings v Webb [1993] 1 All ER 322 ................................................................................................ 21
Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence [2008] EWHC 416 (Admin) .......................................... 23
The Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services v
Andronikou & Ors [2007] EWHC 2307 (Admin) ............................................................................ 40
The Serious Fraud Office v Lexi Holdings Plc [2008] EWCA Crim 1443, [2009] 1 All ER 586 ........ 46
The Staff Side of the Police Negotiating Board & Anor v Secretary of State for the Home Department
[2008] EWHC 1173 (Admin) ........................................................................................................... 34
Transocean International Resources Ltd & Ors v Russell & Ors [2006] UKEAT 0074_05_0410 ..... 26
Traynor & Anor, Re Judicial Review [2007] ScotCS CSOH_78.......................................................... 24
Ward v Chief Adjudication Officer [1998] EWCA Civ 1552 ......................................................... 34, 35
Warren v Random House Group Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 834, [2009] 2 All ER 245 ........................... 47
Watson and others v Croft Promosport Ltd [2008] EWHC 759 (QB), [2008] 3 All ER 1171 ............. 46
X v West Midlands Police [2004] EWHC 61 (Admin) ......................................................................... 46
Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and others v Bedfordshire Police Authority ......................................... 35
Other Countries
Australia
A v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1997] HCA 4; (1997) 190 CLR 225; (1997) 142 ALR
331 .................................................................................................................................................... 35
Austereo Limited v Trade Practices Commission [1993] FCA 301 ...................................................... 24
Austereo Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1993) 41 FCR 1 ............................................................ 29
Australian Postal Corp v Pac-Rim Printing Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 640 ................................................. 52
Bayliss and Medical Board of Queensland [1997] QICmr 6, (1997) 3 QAR 489 ................................ 43
Bozidar Jankovic and Ljubica Kuga v Minister of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs
[1994] FCA 1316; (1994) 35 ALD 261 ............................................................................................ 51
Braganza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 318 ............................... 43
Burgess v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 926 .................................... 29
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
11
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd [1995] HCA 24; (1995) 131 ALR 422; (1995) 69 ALJR 797; (1995)
185 CLR 410 ..................................................................................................................................... 42
Byrne v Transport Accident Commission [2008] VSC 92 .................................................................... 45
C & E P/L v CMC Brisbane P/L (Administrators Appointed) [2004] QCA 60 .................................... 33
Caltex Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd v Best [1990] HCA 53; (1990) 170 CLR 516; (1990) 97 ALR 217; (1990) 65
ALJR 64 ............................................................................................................................................ 18
Campbell v Tow Truck Directorate of Victoria (1995/34314) [2000] VICCAT 3 ............................... 17
Chun Wang v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 70 .......................... 29, 45
Clyde Francis Munnings v DW Smith [1987] FCA 281; 22 IR 254 ..................................................... 23
Commonwealth & ‘Kevin and Jennifer’ & Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2003]
FamCA 94 ......................................................................................................................................... 42
David John Beatty & Anor v Brashs Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 128 .................................................. 29
Director of Public Prosecutions v Eastman and Ors [2002] ACTSC 35 ............................................. 37
Director-General Department Of Land And Water Conservation v Jackson And Ors [2003] NSWLEC
81 ...................................................................................................................................................... 42
Director-General of Education v Suttling [1987] HCA 3; (1987) 162 CLR 427 ................................. 29
D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1; (2005) 214 ALR 92;
(2005) 79 ALJR 755 ......................................................................................................................... 41
Enfield v R [2008] NSWCCA 215 ........................................................................................................ 28
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Belperio [2006] VSC 14 ...................................................................................... 45
Fairfield City Council v N & S Olivieri P/L [2003] NSWCA 41 ......................................................... 45
Farnell Electronic Components Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs [1996] FCA 1135 ............................ 48
Fexuto Pty Limited v Bosnjak Holdings Pty Limited & Ors [2001] NSWCA 97 ................................. 19
Giannarelli v Wraith [1988] HCA 52; (1988) 165 CLR 543................................................................ 41
Glen Michael Belbin and Australian Maritime Safety Authority [1993] AATA 253, (1993) 18 AAR
208 (1993) 30 ALD 432 .................................................................................................................... 48
Grundfos Pumps Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs [1997] FCA 234 ...................................................... 37
Hanna v Migration Agents Registration Authority [1999] FCA 1657 .................................................. 39
Hawkesbury City Council & v Sammut [2002] NSWCA 18................................................................. 36
Hawkins and Anor v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1996] IRCA 236.......................................... 32
Ignatious v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCA 1395 ......... 50
Insurance and Superannuation Commissioner v Wayne Cyril Hiscock [1995] FCA 1510 .................. 38
Jacqueline Hamilton and Olive Mary Mcmurray v Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994]
FCA 1424; (1994) 53 FCR 349 ........................................................................................................ 17
James Hardie & Coy Pty Ltd v Barry & Anor; Seltsam Pty Ltd v Barry & Anor [2000] NSWCA 353
.......................................................................................................................................................... 19
Jurg Bollag & Anor v The Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia & Anor [1997] FCA
1146 .................................................................................................................................................. 45
Kevin Walker v Secretary, Department of Social Security [1995] FCA 1136; (1995) 129 ALR 198
(1995) 36 ALD 513 (1995) 21 Aar 147 ............................................................................................ 40
L v Tasmania [2006] TASSC 59 ........................................................................................................... 19
Lloyd v Police [2004] SASC 278 .......................................................................................................... 48
Manly Council v Malouf [2004] NSWCA 299 ..................................................................................... 32
Maritime Union of Australia v Burnie Port Corporation Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1189 ........................... 51
Mark Anthony Coleman and Director of Public Prosecutions v Kevin James Gray [1994] FCA 1585
.......................................................................................................................................................... 38
Michael Munn v Agus & Anor (1997) 6 NTLR 84, [1997] NTSC 3 ..................................................... 32
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Kumar [2009] HCA 10, at [21] ....................................... 55
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Ye Hu [1997] FCA 1197 .................................. 32
Minister of State for Employment Workplace Relations and Small Business v Community and Public
Sector Union [2001] FCA 316 .......................................................................................................... 52
Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning Commission [2004] WASCA ......................... 39
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
12
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Moweno Pty Ltd v Stratis Promotions Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 376 .................................................... 33
NAAV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228 ........... 28
Nguyen v Minister for Health & Ageing [2002] FCA 1241 .................................................................. 29
Parks Holdings Pty Ltd (trading as Gladstone Chemicals) and CEO of Customs [2001] AATA 562 41
Pepper v A-G (Qld) [No 2] [2008] QCA 207 ....................................................................................... 52
Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v Albert and Rose Khoshaba [2006] NSWCA 41 ...................... 19
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 ...................................... 16
Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355; 153 ALR 490;
72 ALJR 841 ............................................................................................................................... 24, 28
QBE Workers Compensation (Vic) Ltd v Freisleben & Nisselle; City of Bayside v Johns & Nisselle
[1999] VSCA 207 ............................................................................................................................. 43
R v Abdul Haque Omarjee [1995] VSC 94 ........................................................................................... 24
R v Ellis [2003] NSWCCA 319 ............................................................................................................ 19
R v MJR [2002] NSWCCA 129 ............................................................................................................ 25
R v Smith [2003] NSWCCA 381 .......................................................................................................... 19
Radin v Vekic Matter No 1891/97 [1997] NSWSC 234 ....................................................................... 24
Rani Santosh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 1493 .......................... 41
Re Aboriginal Development Commission [1988] FCA 160 .................................................................. 23
Re Australian Building Construction Employees' and Builders Labourers' Federation v the Master
Builders' Association of New South Wales [1986] FCA 380 ............................................................ 45
Re Australian Securities Commission v Neil Lucas [1992] FCA 234; (1992) 7 Ascr 676 (1992) 108
ALR 521 (1992) 36 FCR 165 (1992) 27 ALD 67............................................................................. 37
Re Centronics Systems Pty Ltd; Maurice Latin; Tiberio Salice and Fabrizio Latin v Nintendo
Company Ltd [1992] FCA 584; (1992) 111 ALR 13 (1992) 24 IPR 481 (1992) 39 FCR 147 ......... 40
Re Commissioner of Taxation; Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Melbourne); Douglas Franklin
Booth; Norman Rosenbaum and Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Sydney) v Citibank Limited
[1989] FCA 126 ................................................................................................................................ 38
Re David Harold Eastman v Commissioner of Superannuation [1987] FCA 188 ............................... 52
Re Interchase Corporation Limited (In Liquidation) and Sections 460 and 461 of the Corporations
Law the Application of Gregory Paul Kelly and Richard Anthony Barber (Liquidators of Interchase
Corporation Limited) [1993] FCA 595............................................................................................. 32
Re Janice Beverly Neal v Commissioner of Superannuation [1987] FCA 182 .................................... 49
Re Michael Franciscus Kalwy v the Secretary of the Department of Social Security [1992] FCA 489;
(1992) 16 Aar 403 (1992) 38 FCR 295 (1992) 29 ALD 28 .............................................................. 36
Re Ralph Phillip Sloane v the Minister of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1992]
FCA 414; (1992) 37 FCR 429 (1992) 28 ALD 480 .......................................................................... 29
Re Registrar of Liquor Licences v Peter Iliadis; John Iliadis; Yfigenia Iliadis; Ilias Spyridopoulos and
Despina Spyridopoulos [1988] FCA 328 .......................................................................................... 40
Re Sandvik Australia Pty Limited v Commonwealth of Australia and Collector of Customs [1990]
FCA 386 ............................................................................................................................................ 49
Re Stephen Richard Luckins; Ex Parte: Columbia Pictures Industries & Anor [1996] FCA 567 ....... 26
Red Roll Pty Ltd v Multiplex Latitude Retail Landowner Pty Ltd, Multiplex WS Retail Landowner Pty
Ltd and AWPF Management Pty Ltd [2008] NSWADT 200 ........................................................... 28
Repatriation Commission v Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia NSW Branch Inc & Ors
[2000] NSWCA 65 ........................................................................................................................... 32
Repatriation Commission v William Harold Morris & Anor [1997] FCA 152 .................................... 45
Schanka v Employment National (Administration) Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 202 ....................................... 51
Seafarers' Retirement Fund Pty Ltd v Oppenhuis [1999] FCA 1683 ................................................... 21
Secretary, Department of Treasury and Finance v Kelly [2001] VSCA 246 ....................................... 45
Semunigus v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2000] FCA 240 ................................ 29
Shantha Karunaratna Jayasinghe v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs & Anor [1997] FCA
551 .................................................................................................................................................... 29
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
13
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Shields v Chief Commissioner of Police [2008] VSC 2 ........................................................................ 23
Smith v Zinifex Australia Limited [2008] FCA 532 .............................................................................. 35
South Pacific Air Motive Pty Ltd & Anor v Kenneth Magnus & Ors [1998] FCA 1107 ...................... 30
Staines v Workcover/Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (S A) Ltd (Air International Pty Ltd)
[2004] SAWCT 127 .......................................................................................................................... 45
State Bank of NSW & Anor v Brown & Ors [2001] NSWCA 223 ........................................................ 19
Supreme Court of New South Wales in ASIC v Oliver Banovec (No. 2) [2007] NSWSC 961 ............. 32
Susie Boswell v the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade [1993] FCA 562;
(1993) 118 ALR 719 (1993) 46 FCR 434 ......................................................................................... 49
Switzerland Insurance Australia Ltd v Mowie Fisheries Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 231 ........................ 52, 53
Tasmania v S [2004] TASSC 84 ........................................................................................................... 19
The Distribution Group Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation [2000] VSC 418 ......................................... 51
Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown [2003] HCA 54; (2003) 201 ALR 260; (2003) 77
ALJR 1797 .................................................................................................................................. 20, 51
Victims Compensation Fund v Scott Brown & Ors [2002] NSWCA.................................................... 50
Walker v New South Wales [1994] HCA 64 ......................................................................................... 26
Western Newspapers Pty Ltd v Chrisyian Warren [1994] IRCA 122 .................................................. 32
Wojciech Marian Szelagowicz v John W Stocker, Brian G Gibbs, Gerald Neil Haddad and William
Mark Tunningley [1994] FCA 1110; (1994) 35 ALD 16 .................................................................. 42
Zoran Lozevski v Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd. [2004] NSWIRComm 314 ................ 48
Ireland
Action Aid Ltd v Revenue Commissioners [1997] IEHC 196 ............................................................... 34
C & ors v Minister for Health and Children [2008] IESC 33 .............................................................. 43
Comptroller and Auditor General v Ireland [1997] 1 IR 248 .............................................................. 36
Crilly v T. & J. Farrington Ltd. [2001] IESC 60; [2002] 1 ILRM 161 ................................................ 35
DPP v McDermott and Riordan (12 May 2005, unreported: see David Dodd, Statutory Interpretation
in Ireland (Tottel, 2008) p. 109) ........................................................................................................ 25
DPP v Power [2007] IESC 31 .............................................................................................................. 34
F. -v- Minister for Health and Children [2008] IESC 16 ...................................................................... 36
Iarnroid Eireann -v- Social Welfare Tribunal [2007] IEHC 406 ......................................................... 47
IRC v Parker was applied in Health Service Executive -v- Commissioner for Valuation [2008] IEHC
178 .................................................................................................................................................... 32
Keane v An Bord PleanálaI [1997] 3 IR 200 ........................................................................................ 41
Kelly -v- Minister for Defence & Anor [2008] IEHC 223 .............................................................. 40, 50
Lawlor v Flood [1999] IEHC 10 ........................................................................................................... 16
Lawlor v Mr Justice Flood [1999] 3 IR 107 ......................................................................................... 31
Maguire v Director of Public Prosecutions [2004] 3 IR 241 ............................................................... 40
Maguire v DPP [2004] IESC 53 ..................................................................................................... 16, 31
Mullins v Harnett [1998] 4 IR 426............................................................................................ 25, 30, 31
Nangles Nurseries -v- Commissioners of Valuation [2008] IEHC 73 .................................................. 31
Pierce trading as Swords Memorials & Anor v The Dublin Cemeteries Committee & Ors [2006]
IEHC 182 .......................................................................................................................................... 47
Pierce v Dublin Cemeteries Committee [2006] IEHC 182 ................................................................... 47
Quigley -v- Harris [2008] IEHC ........................................................................................................... 51
Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1997] IEHC 181, [1998] 2 IR 113 ................................. 25
New Zealand
Australasian Correctional Management Limited v Corrections Association of New Zealand (Inc) &
Anor [2002] NZCA 181 .................................................................................................................... 47
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
14
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Avowal Administrative Attorneys Limited and Ors v The District Court at North Shore and Anor
[2007] NZHC 714 ............................................................................................................................. 33
Chamberlains v Lai [2006] NZSC 70 ................................................................................................... 37
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v N Evans [2008] NZHC 1017 ........................................................ 34
Frucor Beverages Limited v R T Fyers & Ors [2001] NZCA 109 ................................................. 29, 43
Huata v Prebble & Anor [2004] NZCA 147......................................................................................... 37
Lisa Cropp v A Judicial Committee and Bryan McKenzie [2008] NZSC 46 ........................................ 39
Official Bay Heritage Protection Society Incorporated v Auckland City Council and another [2007]
NZCA 511......................................................................................................................................... 37
Transpower New Zealand Limited v Taupo District Council [2007] NZHC 999 ................................. 33
Vector Limited & Anor v Transpower New Zealand Limited [1999] NZCA 167 ................................. 21
Warwick Henderson Gallery Limited v Weston [2005] NZCA 272...................................................... 41
Other common law countries
Cable and Wireless (Barbados) Ltd. v Fair Trading Commission and others (No. 1970 of 2003) ...... 31
Chang Mei Wah Selena and Others v Wiener Robert Lorenz and Others and Other Matters [2008]
SGHC 97 ........................................................................................................................................... 28
Department of Land Affairs and Others v Goedgelegen Tropical Fruits .............................................. 31
Du Toit v Minister for the Safety and Security of the Republic of South Africa And Another .............. 31
Kao Lee & Yip (a firm) v Lau Wing & Anor [2008] HKCU 1667 ........................................................ 36
Kok Chong Weng and Others v Wiener Robert Lorenz and Others (Ankerite Pte Ltd, intervener)
[2009] SGCA 7 ................................................................................................................................. 41
Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor [2008] SGCA 20 ........................................................................... 38
Minister for Immigration & Community Services v Summerscales [2000] NFSC 4 ............................ 52
Naduaniwai v Commander, Republic of Fiji Military Forces [2004] FJHC 8; Hbm0032.2004 .......... 37
Prem Singh v Director of Immigration (FACV No. 7 of 2002) ............................................................. 48
R & B Fallon Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal (civil) 3326 of 2008).......................... 34
Re Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Act 1993 ....................................................................... 32
Solel Boneh Building and Infrastructure Ltd and another v Estate of the late Ahmed Abed Alhamid
deceased and others (2006) LCA 8925/04 ....................................................................................... 42
Tse Mui Chun v Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2003) FACC No 4 ................................ 47
European Court of Human Rights
Kafkaris v Cyprus [2008] ECHR 143 ................................................................................................... 22
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
15
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Introduction
Page 6 devolution
On this see C M G Himsworth, ‘Devolution and its Jurisdictional Assymetries’, 70 MLR (2007)
31-58 and his paper in the 15th report (2004) of the Select Committee on Constitution, App 1,
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldselect/ldconst/192/19204.htm.
Pages 12-13 ‘golden rule’
In Re Secretary To the Department of Health v Kathryn June Ryan [1986] FCA 261 at [15] the
Federal Court of Australia said, referring to the first edition of this book, that the ‘golden rule’
has been ‘somewhat battered by judicial decisions in contemporary times when principles of
public interest, legal policy, predictability and purposive construction are from time to time
mooted’.
Pages 12-14 Book, this:nature of
On this book as a code see Journal of the Australasian Tax Teachers Association, [2006]
JATTA 27, footnote 44.
Division One. Interpreter, Instrument and Enactment
Part I. The Interpreter
Section 1. To ‘construe’ or ‘interpret’?
Page 23 construe, meaning of
‘I shall use the words “interpretation” and “construction” interchangeably, as they are in the
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)‘: Murray Gleeson, Chief Justice of the High Court of
Australia, ‘The meaning of legislation: context, purpose and respect for fundamental right’,
Melbourne, 31 July 2008, p. 4n.
Section 2. Interpreter’s duty to arrive at legal meaning
Page 25 legal meaning:multilingual systems
As to the position in Hong Kong, where legislation is required to be in both English and
Chinese, see Legal Department note dated April 1997,
www.legco.gov.hk/yr96-97/english/panels/ajls/papers/zzz2604z.htm.
Section 3. Real doubt as to legal meaning
Page 25 legal meaning
Use of the term ‘legal meaning’ was endorsed by the High Court of Australia: see Project Blue
Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 at [78] and by the Supreme
Court of Ireland: see Maguire v DPP [2004] IESC 53. See also Lawlor v Flood [1999] IEHC 10
at para. 54.
Section 8. Duty to obey legislation
Page 37 statutory duty:types of
On use of the term sub modo cf Secretary of State for the Home Department v Nasseri [2009] 1
All ER 116 at [32].
Section 9. Ignorantia juris neminem excusat
Page 40 ignorantia juris neminem excusat
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
16
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
‘Ignorance of the law is no defence, but it can sometimes amount to mitigation’: R v Rahman, R
v Mohammed [2008] EWCA Crim 1465, [2008] 4 All ER 661, at [44].
Section 10. Mandatory and directory requirements
Page 44 mandatory and directory requirements
Code s 10 was applied in R v B [2000] EWCA Crim 42. Regarding the first sentence in Code s.
10 see McBride, Re Application for Judicial Review [2003] NICA 23(1) at [30] (preamble to
Queen’s Regulations says that they are to be interpreted ‘reasonably and intelligently …
bearing in mind that no attempt has been made to provide for necessary and self evident
exceptions’, in other words, they are not to be construed literally and with the strictness of a
statute).
Page 45 mandatory and directory requirements
As to the passage beginning ‘There is a recent tendency’ near the foot of page 45, note that in
Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 432, [2008] 3 All ER 923, at [22], the
Court of Appeal held that the Defamation Act 1996 s 15 ‘constitutes a mandatory rule of law’.
As to the passage beginning ‘Where a requirement arises’ near the top of p. 46 and continuing
to the end of p. 47 see Robinson, Re Application for Judicial Review [2001] NIQB 49.
Page 46 mandatory and directory requirements
As regards the first complete paragraph on page 46 see Sekhon & Ors v R [2002] EWCA Crim
2954 at [25}: ‘Even if the terms “directory” and “mandatory” are not used the problem remains
of answering the question “what is the effect of non-compliance with procedural
requirements?”‘.
Page 48 consequential construction:mandatory and directory provisions, and
The passage beginning ‘If the court were to hold . . .’ immediately before Example 10.4 was
considered in Goshawk Dedicated (No 2) Ltd v The Bank of Scotland [2005] EWHC 2906 (Ch)
at paragraphs 107, 108.
Page 49 mandatory and directory requirements
The words ‘A duty to do a thing in a certain way by implication imports a duty not to do it in
any other way’ were applied in Australia, see Campbell v Tow Truck Directorate of Victoria
(1995/34314) [2000] VICCAT 3.
Page 50 mandatory and directory requirements
The Federal Court of Australia applied the passage headed Statutory procedures in Jacqueline
Hamilton and Olive Mary Mcmurray v Minister of Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1994] FCA
1424; (1994) 53 FCR 349 at [34].
Page 52 mandatory and directory requirements
In relation to the passage on page 52 headed Interference with liberty, note the following: (1)
The sentence beginning ‘Where an Act’ was followed in R v B [2000] EWCA Crim 42; (2) In
the case of an appeal relating to a criminal conviction the appeal court may not apply the
mandatory/directory test expressly but, where it in fact considers the duty breached to be
mandatory, may quash the conviction on the ground that it was obtained unlawfully: see eg R v
Christopher Bristol [2007] EWCA Crim 3214.
Page 56 mandatory and directory requirements
With regard to the passage headed Purely technical contraventions: (1) See Glasgow City
Council v AD [2005] ScotSC 35 at [22]. (2) Note that Parliament sometimes states expressly
that purely technical contraventions are not to vitiate an act: see eg Proceeds of Crime Act 2002
s 14(11) and Sekhon & Ors v R [2002] EWCA Crim 2954 at [28].
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
17
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Section 12. Where contracting out and waiver not allowed
Page 60 statutory right:contracting out of
Contracting out may be disallowed because it involves ousting the court’s jurisdiction: see
Aribisala v St James Homes (Grosvenor Dock) Ltd. [2007] EWHC 1694 (Ch) at [34]-[36].
For an interesting discussion of this section of the Code by the High Court of Australia see
Caltex Oil (Aust) Pty Ltd v Best [1990] HCA 53; (1990) 170 CLR 516; (1990) 97 ALR 217;
(1990) 65 ALJR 64, at [5].
Section 14. Civil sanction for disobedience (the tort of breach of statutory duty)
Page 79 strict liability
In relation to the reference here to strict liability note that Waller LJ said that strict liability
‘should only be imposed by strict language’: Smith v Northamptonshire County Council [2008]
EWCA Civ 181, [2008] 3 All ER 1054, at [29].
Page 80 Ombudsman:general
Legislation has not drawn the clear line necessary between standards of conduct justifying a
finding of negligence and those justifying an adverse finding by an Ombudsman: see R (on the
application of) Attwood v Health Service Commissioner [2008] EWHC 2315 (Admin), [2009] 1
All ER 415.
Section 15. Administrative or executive agencies
Page 86 Secretary of State
‘Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, which declares that the term “Secretary of State” in
a statute “means one of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State”, expresses a principle of
constitutional law of considerable practical importance: all Secretaries of State carry on Her
Majesty’s government and can, when required, exercise any of the powers conferred by statute
on the Secretary of State. The same applies, in broad terms, to the exercise of the prerogative
powers of the Crown’: Lord Rodger of Earlsferry in R (on the application of Bapio Action Ltd
& Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor [2008] UKHL 27 at [33] (and
see [34]).
Pages 89-90 Padfield approach
This was applied to the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s 37 (licensing of Hackney carriages) in
R (on the application of Newcastle City Council) v Berwick-Upon-Tweed Borough Council &
Ors [2008] EWHC 2369 (Admin) at [29].
Section 17. Investigating agencies
Page 94 anti-social behaviour order (ASBO)
As to hybridity and appeals see Langley v Preston Crown Court & Ors [2008] EWHC 2623
(Admin) at [23].
Section 18. Prosecuting agencies
Pages 95-100 Crown Prosecution Service
As to required prosecution practice and the need for fair notice to the defence, including the
occasional need for a Brown direction in conformity with R v Brown (1984) 79 Cr App R 115,
see R v Chargot Ltd( t/a Contract Services) and others [2008] UKHL 73, [2009] 2 All ER 645.
Pages 98-100 prosecution of offences:Shawcross exercise [New entry, not in fifth edition]
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
18
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
See R (on the application of Corner House and another) v Director of Serious Fraud Office
(BAE Systems plc, interested party) [2008] EWHC, 714 (Admin); [2008] UKHL 60; [2008] 4
All ER 927, at [11].
Pages 98-100 prosecution of offences:judicial review [New entry, not in fifth edition]
As to judicial review in relation to cautions see R (on the application of Guest v DPP [2009]
EWHC 594; [2009] Crim. L. R. 730. See further on judicial review R (on the application of
Corner House and another) v Director of Serious Fraud Office (BAE Systems plc, interested
party) [2008] EWHC, 714 (Admin); [2008] UKHL 60; [2008] 4 All ER 927, at [51].
Pages 100-101 prosecution of offences:private prosecutions
Akin to the right of private prosecution is the right to bring proceedings for contempt of court
under CPR r. 32.14: see KJM Superbikes Limited v Hinton [2008] EWCA Civ 1280. These are
public law civil proceedings with a criminal standard of proof: Kirk v Walton [2008] EWHC
1780 (QB), [2009] 1 All ER 257, at [25[-[27].
Section 19. Courts and other adjudicating authorities
Page 104 separation of powers, doctrine of
There is a ‘separation, in national government, between the powers of the executive and the
powers of Parliament’: R (on the application of Bradley and Others) v Secretary of State for
Work and Pensions [2008] EWCA Civ36, [2008] 3 All ER 1116, at [54]. The case decided that
where persons were aggrieved because a minister rejected a finding against them by the
Parliamentary Ombudsman under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 ‘judicial review
principles apart, their remedy is political, not juridical’ (see [141]).
Pages 109-111 jurisdiction:ouster of
For a provision not regarded as an ouster provision see Okandeji v Bow Street Magistrates
Court & Ors [2005] EWHC 2925 (Admin) at [16]. A court’s jurisdiction cannot be ousted by
mere implication: A v B (Investigatory Powers Tribunal: jurisdiction) [2008] EWHC 1512
(Admin), [2008] 4 All ER 511, at [12]. As to ouster of jurisdiction see also the note above
regarding Code s 12 and the Aribisala case.
Pages 112-113 advocate:lay
Note that the question whether a person has a right of audience is to be determined solely in
accordance with the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 pt II: see s 27 of that Act. For a full
updating regarding use of a McKenzie friend see Re N (A Child) [2008] EWHC 2042 (Fam).
Pages 118-121 open court, principle of the:nature of
Munby J referred to ‘principles of open justice – transparency in the modern jargon’: see Re N
(A Child) [2008] EWHC 2042 (Fam), at para. 20.
Section 20. Interpretation by adjudicating authorities
Pages 127-129 discretion:judgment, distinguished from
The distinction was applied in Tasmania v S [2004] TASSC 84 at [6]; L v Tasmania [2006]
TASSC 59 at [38]; Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v Albert and Rose Khoshaba [2006]
NSWCA 41 at [34]. It was applied by New South Wales Court of Appeal in James Hardie &
Coy Pty Ltd v Barry & Anor; Seltsam Pty Ltd v Barry & Anor [2000] NSWCA 353 at [3],
Fexuto Pty Limited v Bosnjak Holdings Pty Limited & Ors [2001] NSWCA 97 at [3] and State
Bank of NSW & Anor v Brown & Ors [2001] NSWCA 223 at [30]. It was applied by New
South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Ellis [2003] NSWCCA 319 at [95] and R v Smith
[2003] NSWCCA 381 at [95].
Page 129 court:guidelines by
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
19
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
In exercising its appellate function to lay down guidelines as to the exercise of a discretion, a
court is not expounding a rule of law or practice or setting a binding precedent: Fletcher
(Executrix of the estate of Carl Fletcher (deceased) v A Train & Sons Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ
413, [2008] 4 All ER 699, at [11], [24].
Page 130-133 Section 20(4) differential readings: nature of
In the Australian case of Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown [2003] HCA 54;
(2003) 201 ALR 260; (2003) 77 ALJR 1797, at [10] Heydon J said: ‘It is, of course, common
for seemingly small points of construction to generate such sharp and evenly held differences of
opinion . . .’.
Section 21. Doctrine of judicial notice
Pages 136-138 judicial notice:fact, of
The court will not take judicial notice of the alleged fact that the public perception of animals
has changed in recent times: Hanchett-Stamford v Attorney General and another [2008] EWHC
330 (Ch), [2008] 4 All ER 323, at [23].
Judicial notice will be taken of the fact that ‘local authorities are hard pressed, both in terms of
manpower and money .[and] expend very considerable sums of money for the benefit of
persons who have no lawful entitlement to be in this country’: R (on the application of AC) v
Birmingham City Council [2008] EWHC 3036 (Admin), at [2].
Section 23. Adjudicating authorities with appellate jurisdiction
Page 143 legal proceedings:academic or hypothetical point
Patten J warned against construing an enactment in the absence of factual information, adding:
‘To construe the provisions in the abstract risks giving the words used an over-wide or
unrealistic explanation . . .’ (Re Metronet Rail BCV Ltd (In PPP Administration) [2007] EWHC
2697 (Ch), [2008] 2 All ER 75, at [21], [22].) See also Code 5th edn p. 142 n. 7 (preliminary
point of law).
Page 144 academic point
For a case similar to Example 23.1 see R (on the application of Gilboy) v Liverpool City
Council [2008] EWCA Civ 751, [2008] 4 All ER 127, at [2].
Section 26. Dynamic processing of legislation by courts and other enforcement agencies
Page 167 precedent, doctrine of:obiter dictum [New entry, not in fifth edition]
The term obiter dictum derives from the Latin for a saying uttered ‘by the way’, originally two
words ob iter. The OED (2nd edn 1992) cites, from the title page of Augustine Birrell’s book
Obiter Dicta (1884): ‘An obiter dictum, in the language of the law, is a gratuitous opinion, an
individual impertinence [that is something strictly not pertinent] which, whether it be wise or
foolish, right or wrong, bindeth none - not even the lips that utter it.’ In 2008 Mummery LJ
said: ‘There is no point in cluttering up the law reports with obiter dicta, which could, in some
cases, embarrass a court having to decide the issue later on’: Housden and another v
Conservators of Wimbledon and Putney Commons [2008] EWCA Civ 200, [2008] 3 All ER
1038, at [31]. Nevertheless they are so cluttered up.
Page 174 per incuriam decision:nature of
The definition given on Code page 174 was described by the Court of Appeal as ‘the modern
doctrine of per incuriam in criminal cases’: see R v BR [2003] EWCA Crim 2199 at [30].
Pages 174-175 Lords, House of:precedent, and
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
20
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
For a more recent example of an overruling under the 1966 Practice Statement see A v Hoare
and other appeals [2008] UKHL 6, [2008] 2 All ER 1 (overruling Stubbings v Webb [1993] 1
All ER 322).
Section 28. Types of Act
Page 188 declaratory enactment
Applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Seafarers’ Retirement Fund Pty Ltd v Oppenhuis
[1999] FCA 1683 at [14].
Part II. The Instrument to be Interpreted: Acts of Parliament
Section 28. Types of Act
Pages 189-190 constitutional rights
For the rights of aboriginal peoples see Kent McNeil, ‘Aboriginal Governments and the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’, www.ohlj.ca/archive/articles/34_1_mcneil.pdf.
Section 32. Overriding effect of an Act
Page 198 Act of Parliament:overriding effect of
Rug analogy The Court of Appeal of New Zealand described this as putting the position
‘graphically’ in Vector Limited & Anor v Transpower New Zealand Limited [1999] NZCA 167
at [53].
Pages 198-200 common law:abolition of common law rules by Act
An example of the abolition of common law rules by statute is the abolition of the common law
offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act
2008 ss 79, 149 and 153(2) and Sch 28: see FB’s 2008 article at
www.francisbennion.com/2008/021.htm.
Section 33. Uniqueness of an Act
Page 205 Bill, parliamentary:legal status of
As to preparatory acts by a government department in anticipation of the passing of a Bill see R
(on the application of Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and another) v Secretary of
State for Communities and Local Government (Shropshire County Council, interested party)
[2008] EWCA Civ 148, [2008] 3 All ER 548.
Section 34. Whether an Act binds the Crown: the doctrine of Crown immunity
Pages 207-208 Crown:ambit of concept
See R (on the application of Bapio Action Ltd & Anor) v Secretary of State for the Home
Department & Anor [2008] UKHL 27.
Section 38. Royal assent (signification)
Page 218 Royal Assent:refusal of
As to refusal or delay regarding assent (including the procedure in other countries) see Stabroek
News (Guyana) 30 December 2008, www.stabroeknews.com/features/lightly-spoken-words.
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
21
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Section 45. Settling of text of Act and promulgation
Pages 226-227 Queen’s Printer
In 2007 HMSO was acquired by Williams Lea, which operates in the private sector.
Section 48. Nature of a prerogative instrument
Pages 237-240 prerogative instrument:nature of
‘It is true that a prerogative Order in Council is primary legislation in the sense that the
legislative power of the Crown is original and not subordinate. It is classified as primary
legislation for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998: see paragraph (f)(i) of the definition
in section 21(1). That means that it cannot be overridden by Convention rights . . . But the fact
that such Orders in Council in certain important respects resemble Acts of Parliament does not
mean that they share all their characteristics. The principle of the sovereignty of Parliament . . .
is founded upon the unique authority Parliament derives from its representative character. An
exercise of the prerogative lacks this quality; although it may be legislative in character, it is
still an exercise of power by the executive alone. (R (On The Application of Bancoult) v
Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2008] UKHL 61, [2008] 3 WLR
955, per Lord Hoffmann at [34]).
A prerogative instrument may be made by a minister on his own authority, eg the Immigration
Rules on which see Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ
308 at[17]-[19]. As to Code s. 48 see also BW, Re Judicial Review [2007] NICA 44 at [28].
Controversy exists over whether there is a ‘third power’ which, apart from legislation and the
prerogative, authorises state action: see Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and Anor v
Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 148 at
22-27, 43-71, 72-77, 78-81; F A R Bennion, ‘“Never On The Cards”: Fighting For Two-Tier
Local
Government’,
173
CL&J
(31
Jan
2009)
pp
72-75,
www.francisbennion.com/2009/005.htm, at paras 29, 30.
Part III. The Instrument to be Interpreted: Subordinate Legislation
Section 50. Nature of delegated legislation
Page 244 delegated legislation:Act, conflict with
Henry LJ applied the passage headed Must not conflict with law in Hyde Park Residence Ltd v
Secretary For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 13 at [29].
Page 245 delegated legislation:‘as if in Act’
(1) The first two sentences of the Comment on Code s 87 were followed in R (on the
application of Secretary Of State For Home Department) v Burke [1998] EWHC Admin 913 at
[4]. (2) The sentence referred to in footnote 5 on page 245 was acted on in R (on the application
of Lightfoot) v Lord Chancellor [1998] EWHC Admin 827 (see [51]).
Section 51. Parliamentary control of delegated legislation
Pages 247-248 legislation:primary and secondary [New entry, not in fifth edition]
The words ‘since this has the effect of converting it into primary legislation’ preceding
Example 51.1 were cited to the ECtHR in Kafkaris v Cyprus [2008] ECHR 143 at para. 50.
Section 58. Ultra vires delegated legislation
Page 254 ultra vires, doctrine of:delegated legislation, and
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
22
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
The European Communities Act 1972 s 2(2) authorises the making of delegated legislation for
the purpose of implementing any Community obligation of the United Kingdom etc. It would
be ultra vires for such delegated legislation to go any wider than was required to implement the
obligation in question: Oyarce v Cheshire County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 434, [2008] 4 All
ER 907.
Page 256 Attorney General v Great Eastern Railway Co., rule in
See Re Application by Local Government Auditor [2005] NIQB 52.
Pages 258-259 Section 58(2) severance:delegated legislation
For an example of severance of a byelaw see Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence
[2008] EWHC 416 (Admin). For an example of severance{ } of an Order in Council see A and
others v HM Treasury [2008] EWCA Civ 1187, [2009] 2 All ER 747.
Section 59. Delegated legislation: the rule of primary intention
Pages 262-263 delegated legislation:primary intention, rule of
Code s 59 was applied in: R (on the application of Sarwar & Anor,) v Secretary Of State For
Social Security [1996] EWCA Civ 801; HM Revenue & Customs v Dunwood Travel Ltd [2008]
EWCA Civ 174; Clyde Francis Munnings v DW Smith [1987] FCA 281; 22 IR 254 at [9]; Re
Aboriginal Development Commission [1988] FCA 160 at [37].
As to this rule see HM Revenue & Customs v Dunwood Travel Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 174 at
[14], [15], [23].
Section 65. Types of delegated legislation: (5) byelaws
Page 270 byelaws:uncertainty, void for
For an example of severance of a byelaw see Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence
[2008] EWHC 416 (Admin).
Section 66. Types of delegated legislation: (6) other instruments
Page 272 direction
See N & Anor, Re Application for Judicial Review [2005] NIQB 75 at [8](2).
Part IV. Commencement, Amendment and Repeal of Acts
Section 78. Textual amendment
Page 288-292 amendment to Act:textual
In Shields v Chief Commissioner of Police [2008] VSC 2 at [102]-[104] the Supreme Court of
Victoria applied the sentence on p. 290 ‘However it is submitted that under modern practice the
intention of Parliament when effecting textual amendment of an Act is usually to produce a
revised text of the Act which is thereafter to be construed as a whole.’
The passage on p. 291 headed Effect of amending Act was applied by the House of Lords in
Medcalf v Weatherill and Another [2002] UKHL 27 at [20].
Section 81. Amendment by delegated legislation
Page 294 amendment to Act:delegated legislation, by
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
23
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Lord Bingham of Cornhill said that recognition of Parliament’s primary law making role
requires the narrow approach indicated on p. 294: R v Secretary of State for the Environment,
Transport and the Regions, ex p Spath Holme Limited [2001] 2 AC 349 at 382. See also
Traynor & Anor, Re Judicial Review [2007] ScotCS CSOH_78 at [8].
Section 83. References to an amended enactment
Page 298 amendment to Act:reference to amended Act
Code s 83 was discussed by the Federal Court of Australia in Austereo Limited v Trade
Practices Commission [1993] FCA 301 at [39].
Section 85. Meaning of ‘repeal’
Page 300 repeal:nature of
Code s 85 has been approved in Australia: R v Abdul Haque Omarjee [1995] VSC 94 at [46].
Section 87. Implied repeal
Page 304 repeal:implied
(1) The first two sentences of the Comment on Code s 87 were followed in R (on the
application of Secretary Of State For Home Department) v Burke [1998] EWHC Admin 913 at
[4]. (2) Regarding the sentence before Example 87.1 beginning ‘The possibility of implied
repeal goes wider . . .’ Buxton LJ said in relation to the reference to anomaly: ‘No authority is
cited for the latter proposition and I am unable to act on it’: O’Byrne v Secretary of State for
Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [1996] EWCA Civ 499 at paragraph 26. In view of
this dictum the reference to anomaly should be treated as withdrawn.
Section 87. Implied repeal
Page 305 repeal:implied
The Court of Appeal followed what is said on p. 305 regarding the presumption against implied
repeal in Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 175.
Substitution To substitute a new provision for an existing provision is by implication expressly
to repeal the existing provision: R v Abdul Haque Omarjee [1995] VSC 94 [Australia].
Section 88. Generalia specialibus non derogant
Page 306 generalia specialibus non derogant
Henry LJ applied Code s 88 in Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Secretary For Environment,
Transport & Regions & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 13 at [31].
For a mistaken use of this maxim, corrected by the High Court of Australia, see Project Blue
Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355; 153 ALR 490; 72
ALJR 841, at [78]-[81].
Section 89. Savings on repeal
Page 309 saving:common law and
For an observation by Young J of the Supreme Court of New South Wales on the Comment
relating to Code s 89(i) see Radin v Vekic Matter No 1891/97 [1997] NSWSC 234.
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
24
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Section 96. Transitional provisions on repeal, amendment etc
Pages 314-315 transitional provisions
Code s 96 was approved by: (1) Buxton LJ in Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home
Department [2008] EWCA Civ 308 at[17]; (2) McGuinness J in Quinlivan v Governor of
Portlaoise Prison [1997] IEHC 181, [1998] 2 IR 113; (3) O’Higgins J in Mullins v Harnett
[1998] 4 IR 426.
As to Code s 96(2) see: (1) R v Cartwright [2007] EWCA Crim 2581 esp. at [27] (where in
error Code s 269 is referred to instead of Code s 96); (2) Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise
Prison [1997] IEHC 181, [1998] 2 IR 113, at paras. 51, 52.
Section 97. Presumption against retrospective operation
Page 317 retrospectivity:nature of
As to the passage on p. 317 beginning ‘It is important to grasp the true nature’ (including
Example 97.3) see: (1) MM (Section 8: commencement) Iran [2005] UKAIT 00115 at paras 13,
14, (2) Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v Dorset County Council [2007] EWHC 365
(Ch), [2007] 2 All ER 1000, at [31], [32] (confirmed [2008] EWCA Civ 22).
Page 319 statutory interpretation:public good construction
The opening sentences under this heading on page 319 were approved: (1) by McGuinness J
(who also approved Code s 264) in Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1998] 2 IR 113;
(2) by O’Higgins J in Mullins v Harnett [1998] 4 IR 426. They were also referred to in
Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1997] IEHC 181; [1998] 2 IR 113 at paras. 46, 47
Section 98. Retrospective operation: procedural provisions
Page 320 retrospectivity:procedural provisions and
Code s 98 was applied in Kensington International Ltd. v Republic of the Congo [2007] EWHC
1632 (Comm) at [74].
The wording of Code s 98 was approved by Peart J in DPP v McDermott and Riordan (12 May
2005, unreported: see David Dodd, Statutory Interpretation in Ireland (Tottel, 2008) p. 109).
See also the view of New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal in R v MJR [2002] NSWCCA
129 at [17].
Part V. Extent and Application of Acts
Section 103. The ‘extent’ of an Act
Page 329 territorial extent of Act:basic rule
Code s 103 was applied in Financial Times Ltd v Bishop [2003] UKEAT 0147_03_2511 at
para. 61. In Serious Fraud Office v [2009] UKHL 17, [2009] 2 All ER 223, at [32] Lord
Phillips of Worth Matravers referred to ‘the well-established canon of construction that requires
clear language if an Act is to be given extra-territorial effect’.
Section 104. Uniform meaning throughout area of extent
Page 330 territorial extent of Act:uniform meaning throughout extent
As to Code s. 104 see Davidson, Re Application For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 293, at
[23].
Section 105. Composition of an enactment’s territory
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
25
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Page 335 cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos [New entry, not in fifth edition]
As to the application of this maxim see Bocardo SA v Star Energy UK Onshore Ltd and
another [2008] EWHC 1756 (Ch), [20009] 1 All ER 517, at [47]-[57].
Section 128. General principles as to application
Page 360n application of Act:principles governing
Add to the authorities cited in footnote 2 on p. 360: Serco Ltd. v Lawson [2004] EWCA Civ 12
at paragraph 16; Faulkner & Ors v BT Northern Ireland & Ors [2005] NIIT 3933_01 (race
discrimination provision extending only to Northern Ireland; can comparators in Great Britain
be taken into account?); Holis Metal Industries Ltd v GMB & Anor [2007] UKEAT
0171_07_1212 at 34; Transocean International Resources Ltd & Ors v Russell & Ors [2006]
UKEAT 0074_05_0410 at paras 20, 26, 52, 54, 71, 72, 79 (application of regulations to
continental shelf); Walker v New South Wales [1994] HCA 64 at [5] (claim that Australian Acts
do not apply to Aborigines invalid); [1995] Aboriginal Law Bulletin 14,
www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1995/14.html
Page 362 application of Act:principles governing
‘. . . the words “peace order and good government” have never been construed as words
limiting the power of a legislature. Subject to the principle of territoriality implied in the
words “of the Territory”, they have always been treated as apt to confer plenary law-making
authority.’ (R (On The Application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State For Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs [2008] UKHL 61, [2008] 3 WLR 955, per Lord Hoffmann at [50]).
Section 129. Application to foreigners and foreign matters within the territory
Page 366 application of Act:foreign elements within the territory, and
Mason CJ approved the sentence ‘As well as enjoying the benefits of domestic laws from
which they are not expressly excluded, foreigners present in the country must also accept the
burdens those laws impose’: see [1995] Aboriginal Law Bulletin 14,
www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/journals/AboriginalLB/1995/14.html.
Section 131. Application to Britons and British matters outside the territory
Pages 379-380 application of Act:non-resident Britons, to
Add the following to the enactments listed in the passage on pp. 379-380 beginning ‘Other
criminal statutes dealing with offences overseas include’: Criminal Justice and Immigration Act
2008 s 72 (sex tourism).
Section 133. Deemed location of an omission
Page 387 omission to act
Code s 133 was considered by Sedley J in Kennet District Council v Young & Ors [1998]
EWHC Admin 938 and by the Federal Court of Australia in Re Stephen Richard Luckins; Ex
Parte: Columbia Pictures Industries & Anor [1996] FCA 567.
Section 134. Deemed location of composite act or composite omission
Pages 387-388 composite act or omission
Code s 134 was considered by Sedley J in Kennet District Council v Young & Ors [1998]
EWHC Admin 938
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
26
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Part VI. The Enactment and the Facts
Section 136. Applying the enactment to the facts
Page 394 assessor
In the Comment on Code s 136, add to the note on p. 394 a reference to Mastercigars Direct
Ltd v Withers LLP [2008] 3 All ER 417, [2007] EWHC 2733 (Ch), at [129], where Morgan J
revealed that his assessors did not agree with parts of his decision.
Page 394 recusal
A judge should not recuse himself from further proceedings in a case merely because a decision
of his in the case has been reversed on appeal: Re B (children) (sexual abuse: standard of
proof) [2008] UKHL 35, [2008] 4 All ER 1, at [81].
Section 139. Selective comminution
Pages 401-404 selective comminution:meaning of
For a case where the trial Judge in effect put to the jury a selective comminution of the
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 s 5 see R v Ikram and another [2008] EWCA
Crim 586, [2008] 4 All ER 253, at [62]. While retaining the essential statutory wording, the
Judge ‘disentangled’ the enactment so as to present it to the jury so far as possible in ordinary
language.
Section 142. Drafting presumed competent
Page 414 drafting error:presumption against
As to the sentence before Example 142.2 see the further example in R v Murray & Anor [2006]
NICA 33 (failure to include commencement provision).
Section 144. The legal thrust
Pages 422-423 cause of action
In the Comment on Code s 144, add to the passage on pp. 422-423 a reference to Legal Services
Commission v Rasool [2008] 3 All ER 381, [2008] EWCA Civ 154, at [30] where Ward LJ said
‘a cause of action for a sum recoverable by virtue of an enactment accrues notwithstanding that
it remains to be quantified’.
Section 146. Proof of relevant facts
Page 427 fact:proof of
As to Code s 146(2) see Re B (children) (sexual abuse: standard of proof) [2008] UKHL 35,
[2008] 4 All ER 1 at [2], [32] (‘He is not allowed to sit on the fence’).
Section 149. Opposing constructions of an enactment 429
Page 434-435 court: adversarial system
What is said here about the duty of advocates to assist the court in ascertaining the law cannot
of course apply to litigants in person unless they happen to be legal experts. As to the parties
dictating to the court on the law to be applied see Kay v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
[2008] UKHL 69 at [74].
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
27
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Division Two. The Legal Meaning of an Enactment
Part VII. Grammatical and Strained Constructions
Section 150. Nature of the legal meaning
Pages 441-442 legal meaning:nature of
The first paragraph of the Comment was applied by the High Court of Australia in Project Blue
Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28; 194 CLR 355; 153 ALR 490; 72
ALJR 841, at [78]-[81]. See also Red Roll Pty Ltd v Multiplex Latitude Retail Landowner Pty
Ltd, Multiplex WS Retail Landowner Pty Ltd and AWPF Management Pty Ltd [2008]
NSWADT 200 at [54].
Section 158. When strained construction needed
Pages 458-463 strained construction:reasons justifying
Henry LJ applied Code s 158(a) (repugnancy) in Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Secretary For
Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 13 at [34].
Code s 158 was applied by the Singapore High Court in Chang Mei Wah Selena and Others v
Wiener Robert Lorenz and Others and Other Matters [2008] SGHC 97 at para. 20. This was
upheld on appeal: see [2009] SGCA 7 at [49]-[51].
See entry for pp 971-979 s. 313 ‘absurdity’ above. For an example of strained construction see
the Australian case of Enfield v R [2008] NSWCCA 215 at [97].
Part VIII. Legislative Intention
Section 163: Legislative intention as the paramount criterion
Page 470 counter-intuitive readings
To the references to counter-intuitive readings at lines 3-4 and footnote 2, add: Giles v Rhind
[2008] EWCA Civ 118, [2008] 3 All ER 697, at [17]. See also 5th edn page 1091 n3.
Section 164. Is legislative intention fictitious?
Page 472-474 intention, legislative:fictitious, whether
The Australian Justice Keith Mason said ‘Bennion is surely correct in describing [see p. 474]
the suggestion that there can be no true intention behind an Act of Parliament as “antidemocratic”’ (‘Legislators’ intent: how judges discern it and what they do if they find it’ ,
IALS, 2 November 2006, 67).
The Federal Court of Australia upheld the validity of Code s 164 in NAAV v Minister for
Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228 at [432]-[433].
Section 166. The duplex approach to legislative intention
Page 477 intention, legislative:duplex approach to
The Federal Court of Australia upheld the validity of Code s 166 in NAAV v Minister for
Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228 at [432]-[433].
Section 171. Intention distinguished from motive
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
28
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Page 484 political factors:enactment, behind
With regard to the words preceding Example 171.1 see Schiemann LJ’s comment that the
Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 ‘clearly represents a compromise between a variety of
commercial and political considerations’: Dale Farm Dairy Group Ltd (t/a Northern Dairies) v
Akram & Ors [1997] EWCA Civ 2125.
Part IX. Filling in the Textual Detail
Section 172. Nature of a legislative implication
Pages 488-489 ellipsis (the Relevant Index entry should not be italicised)
As to the passage on pp. 488-489 see In re UK Waste Management[1999] NICA 2; [1999] NI
183; at para. 24 and Electricity Supply Assoc of Australia Ltd v Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission [2001] FCA 1296 at [102].
Section 173. Is it legitimate to draw implications?
Pages 491-494 implication:legitimacy of
The Australian Judge Merkel J, citing Code s 173, said: ‘it has been long accepted that the legal
meaning of an enactment includes what is necessarily or properly implied so as to give effect to
the legislative intention gleaned from the language used (Chun Wang v Minister for
Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 70). See also Re Application by the Local
Government Auditor [2003] NIQB 21 at [11], [12]. The like ruling was made by the Court of
Appeal of New Zealand in Frucor Beverages Limited v R T Fyers & Ors [2001] NZCA 109 at
[36].
TO HERE
Section 174. When legislative implications are legitimate
Page 494 implication:legitimacy of
In Shantha Karunaratna Jayasinghe v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs & Anor
[1997] FCA 551 the Federal Court of Australia said: ‘The threshold of “necessity” has been
rejected in favour of the formulation that the implication be “proper”. In Austereo Ltd v Trade
Practices Commission (1993) 41 FCR 1 French and Beazley JJ accepted as a correct
formulation the following passage in Bennion . . . ‘ (the FCA went on to cite the passage at
Code p 495 beginning ‘The question of whether an implication should be found within the
express words of an enactment depends . . .’ and ending ‘Where the point is doubtful it will, as
always in interpretation, call for a weighing and balancing of the relevant factors’). See
Director-General of Education v Suttling [1987] HCA 3; (1987) 162 CLR 427 at [8]; Re Ralph
Phillip Sloane v the Minister of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1992] FCA
414; (1992) 37 FCR 429 (1992) 28 ALD 480, at [32]; David John Beatty & Anor v Brashs Pty
Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 128. And see Semunigus v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural
Affairs [2000] FCA 240 at [109]; Burgess v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[2000] FCA 926 at [13]-[17].
Page 497 Attorney General v Great Eastern Railway Co., rule in
See Re Application by Local Government Auditor [2005] NIQB 52.
Severance The rule was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Nguyen v Minister for
Health & Ageing [2002] FCA 1241 at [65] to authorise severance of a licence granted to a
group of pharmacists where one had misbehaved.
Pages 498-499 implication:limitation on express words, of
In Aiden Shipping Co v Interbulk [1986] AC 965 at 981 Lord Goff said:
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
29
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
‘Courts of first instance are, I believe, well capable of exercising their discretion under [the
Supreme Court Act 1981 s 51] in accordance with reason and justice. I cannot imagine any case
arising in which some order for costs is made, in the exercise of the court’s discretion, against
some person who has no connection with the proceedings in question. If any problem arises, the
Court of Appeal can lay down principles for the guidance of judges of first instance, or the
Supreme Court Rule Committee can propose amendments of the Rules of the Supreme Court
for the purpose of controlling the exercise of the statutory power vested in [a] judge subject to
rules of court’.
On the above dictum see Dolphin Quays Development Ltd v Mills and others [2008] EWCA
Civ 385, [2008] 4 All ER 56, at [3].
Section 175. When legislative implications affect related law
Page 499 implication:related law, affecting
As to Code s. 175 see Davidson, Re Application For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 293, at
[24].
Page 500 implication:related law, affecting
As to the passage headed Where courts follow statutory analogy see South Pacific Air Motive
Pty Ltd & Anor v Kenneth Magnus & Ors [1998] FCA 1107.
Section 177. Interstitial articulation (general)
Page 504 interstitial articulation:meaning of
It should be noted that an interstitial articulation is not concerned with improving the drafting
of the enactment in question. It keeps to the official wording except so far as is needed to
express clearly the rival legal meanings. Defects in that wording, such as unnecessary
repetition, should therefore be ignored. An interstitial articulation is directed solely to bringing
out a possible operative legal meaning of the enactment.
Part IX. Filling in the Textual Detail
Section 179. Interstitial articulation by the court
Page 505 interstitial articulation:examples of
Lord Bingham of Cornhill gave a striking example of interstitial articulation by the court when
he spelt out a restrictive addition to the power of the Secretary of State under the Asylum and
Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 s. 19(3)(b) (permission to marry): R (on
the application of Baiai and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Nos 1 and
2) [2008] UKHL 53, [2008] 3 All ER 1094, at [32].
Another example of interstitial articulation by the court is found in Perrin and another v
Northampton Borough Council and others [2008] EWCA Civ 1353, [2008] 4 All ER 673, at
[56].
Part X. Interpretative Criteria and Interpretative Factors
Section 182. Strict and liberal construction
Page 517 strict and liberal construction
The passage on mixed consequences at the foot of p. 517 was approved by O’Higgins J in
Mullins v Harnett [1998] 4 IR 426.
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
30
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Section 185. Interpretative factors all pointing one way
Page 521 interpretative factors:consistent result from, effect of
Code s. 185 was applied in Nangles Nurseries -v- Commissioners of Valuation [2008] IEHC 73
at para. 41.
Division Three. Rules of Construction
Part XI. Rules of Construction (General)
Section 192. Nature of rules of construction
Page 544 legislation:remedial [New entry, not in fifth edition]
It is sometimes suggested that there is a rule of construction relating to so-called remedial
legislation. Thus in Du Toit v Minister for the Safety and Security of the Republic of South
Africa
And
Another
[2009]
ZACC
22,
http://41.208.61.234/uhtbin/cgisirsi/20090825152240/SIRSI/0/520/J-CCT91-08. Langa CJ says
at [54]: ‘The applicant invoked the fact that the statute is remedial legislation, the purpose of
which is to “express the values of the Constitution and to remedy the failure to respect such
values in the past”.34 He relied on Goedgelegen Tropical Fruits, where this Court held that the
Constitution and remedial legislation “umbilically linked to the Constitution” ought to be
interpreted in context and by offering a “generous construction over a merely technical or
linguistic one”.35’ The footnote references are: 34 Department of Land Affairs and Others v
Goedgelegen Tropical Fruits [2007] ZACC 12; 2007 (6) SA 199 (CC); 2007 (10) BCLR 1027
(CC); at para 55.35 Id at para 53.
I have not mentioned this supposed rule of interpretation in my writings because it is not part of
the common law. As Blackstone said (Commentaries i 86) all statutes that are not declaratory
are remedial, so there is no special case to apply the supposed rule to. Furthermore it is
unsatisfactory to contrast the suggested ‘generous’ construction with one that is ‘merely
technical or linguistic’. These do not fall into any accepted categories.
A similar rule to the South African one just mentioned is applied in Hong Kong: see HKSAR v
Lam Kwong Wai and Another (2006) 9 HKCFAR 574. It seems that these rulings should be
regarded as relevant only for countries governed by a written constitution.
Section 193. Basic rule of statutory interpretation
Page 544 statutory interpretation:basic rule
The wording of Code s 193 was approved by the Supreme Court of Ireland in Maguire v DPP
[2004] IESC 53.
Page 545 statutory interpretation:basic rule
This page was relied on by the Barbados High Court in Cable and Wireless (Barbados) Ltd. v
Fair Trading Commission and others (No. 1970 of 2003) at [36]-[37].
Section 197. The commonsense construction rule
Page 551 commonsense construction rule
The wording of Code s 197 was approved: (1) by McGuinness J in Quinlivan v Governor of
Portlaoise Prison [1998] 2 IR 113; (2) by O’Higgins J in Mullins v Harnett [1998] 4 IR 426;
(3) by Kearns J in Lawlor v Mr Justice Flood [1999] 3 IR 107.
Page 551 commonsense construction rule:examples of application of
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
31
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
As to Code s 197 see Billig, Re Application for Judicial Review [2006] ScotCS CSOH_148 at
[35] (para xvi of Respondent’s submissions). commonsense construction rule/nature of
See Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1997] IEHC 181; [1998] 2 IR 113 at paras. 48,
49.
Pages 555-556 greater includes less
This principle was applied by the Supreme Court of New South Wales in ASIC v Oliver
Banovec (No. 2) [2007] NSWSC 961 at [28].
Section 198. The rule ut res magis valeat quam pereat
Page 558 res magis valeat quam pereat
Code s 198 was applied by the High Court of Malawi in its ruling on the Malawi 1999
Presidential Election in Re Parliamentary and Presidential Elections Act 1993,
www.sdnp.org.mw/elect99/mainstory.html (1999).
Part XII Rules of Construction Laid Down by Statute
Section 199. Statutory definitions
Pages 562-564 definition, statutory:potency of term defined
See Optos Plc v Revenue & Customs [2006] UKSPC SPC00560 at para. 127.
This principle was applied by the House of Lords in R (on the application of Heffernan) v Rent
Service [2008] UKHL 58, [2009] 1 All ER 173 at [74] (‘locality’); It was applied by the
Industrial Relations Court of Australia in Western Newspapers Pty Ltd v Chrisyian Warren
[1994] IRCA 122 (‘associated’) and Hawkins and Anor v Commonwealth Bank of Australia
[1996] IRCA 236 (‘redundancy’). It was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Minister
for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Ye Hu [1997] FCA 1197 (‘usual occupation’). It
was applied by the New South Wales Appeal Court in Repatriation Commission v Vietnam
Veterans’ Association of Australia NSW Branch Inc & Ors [2000] NSWCA 65 at [104] (‘sound
medical-scientific evidence’) and Manly Council v Malouf [2004] NSWCA 299 at [8] (‘shop’).
Page 565 definition, statutory:substantive effect, having
The passage in the middle of Code p 565 was applied by the Court of Appeal of the Northern
Territory of Australia in Michael Munn v Agus & Anor (1997) 6 NTLR 84, [1997] NTSC 3, at
[33].
Pages 569-570 definition, statutory:contrary intention and
In Re Interchase Corporation Limited (In Liquidation) and Sections 460 and 461 of the
Corporations Law the Application of Gregory Paul Kelly and Richard Anthony Barber
(Liquidators of Interchase Corporation Limited) [1993] FCA 595 at [27] the Federal Court of
Australia applied Code s 199(4) where the contrary intention was not mentioned.
Page 570 definition, statutory:clarifying
The dictum from IRC v Parker was applied in Health Service Executive -v- Commissioner for
Valuation [2008] IEHC 178 at para. 9.
Page 572 definition, statutory:referential
As to the passage on referential definitions on Code p. 572 see Elizabeth Court (Bournemouth)
Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKSPC SPC00648. See also (in this table) the entry relating
to incorporation by reference.
Pages 573-574 definition, statutory:enlarging
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
32
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Citing Code s 199, the Chancellor of the High Court referred in Revenue & Customs v Premier
Foods Ltd. [2007] EWHC 3134 (Ch) at [18] to ‘the well recognised canon of construction that
an enlarging definition does not normally affect the width of the term being enlarged’.
In Moweno Pty Ltd v Stratis Promotions Pty Ltd [2003] NSWCA 376 at [61] a definition in the
form ‘means and includes’ was classified as an enlarging definition.
An example of an enlarging definition (see pp 573-574) which gives an unexpected meaning
for a term is provided by the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 s 6(1). This bleakly says ‘Girl
includes woman’. The practice dealt with by the Act is commonly inflicted on girls around the
age of seven, so the drafter uses ‘girl’ rather than ‘woman’ throughout the Act. This overlooks
the potency of the term defined (see pp 562-564), which could give the defence an argument if
the victim were a woman of advanced years.
Section 200. The Interpretation Act 1978
Page 576 Interpretation Act 1978:general
Commenting on the sentence on p. 576 ‘An Interpretation Act does not operate in such a way as
to change the essential effect of an enactment to which it applies.’ David Dodd says in
Statutory Interpretation in Ireland (Tottel, 2008) p. 254: ‘That holds weight in respect of
Interpretation Acts where the purpose is to collect generally applicable definitions and terms.
Provisions of the [Irish] Interpretation Act 2005, however, go much further than this
“traditional” function of Interpretation Acts.’
Pages 579-581 singular and plural
For a detailed discussion on when the contrary intention appears see Cranston J in East Devon
District Council v Electoral Commission (The Boundary Committee for England) [2009]
EWHC 4 (Admin) at [35]-[40] and F A R Bennion, ‘“Never On The Cards”: Fighting For TwoTier
Local
Government’,
173
CL&J
(31
Jan
2009)
pp
72-75,
www.francisbennion.com/2009/005.htm at paras 15-23.
For a discussion by the Supreme Court of Queensland of when the singular includes the plural
see C & E P/L v CMC Brisbane P/L (Administrators Appointed) [2004] QCA 60 at [18]-[22].
Part XIII. The Informed Interpretation Rule (General)
Section 201. Statement of the rule
Pages 585-588 informed interpretation:rule
Code s. 201 was applied in Johnston Publishing (North) Ltd & Ors v Revenue & Customs
[2006] UKSPC SPC00564 at [74]; Etame v Secretary of State for the Home Department &
Anor [2008] EWHC 1140 (Admin) at [53]. See also David Dodd, Statutory Interpretation in
Ireland (Tottel, 2008) pp. 206-207 (n. 9).
Section 205. Interpreter’s need for legal knowledge
Page 593 interpreter of enactment:legal knowledge, need for
Code s 205 was applied by the High Court of New Zealand in Transpower New Zealand
Limited v Taupo District Council [2007] NZHC 999 at [13] and in Avowal Administrative
Attorneys Limited and Ors v The District Court at North Shore and Anor [2007] NZHC 714 at
[7].
Section 210. The pre-Act law
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
33
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Pages 599-604 Section 210(3) Barras principle
The Barras principle as explained here was applied in BBC Scotland v Souster [2001] IRLR
150, [2000] ScotCS 308, at [28].
For an application of the Barras principle where Parliament had ‘adopted’ an erroneous
decision see A v Hoare and other appeals [2008] UKHL 6, [2008] 2 All ER 1, at [15]; R (on the
application of Etame) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another [2008]
EWHC 1140 (Admin) , at [53].
Page 599 pre-Act law, the [New entry, not in fifth edition]
Code s 210 was followed by Peter Gibson LJ in Ward v Chief Adjudication Officer [1998]
EWCA Civ 1552.
Page 601 Section 210(3) Barras principle
The dictum at the top of this page was applied by the High Court of New Zealand in
Commissioner of Inland Revenue v N Evans [2008] NZHC 1017 at [34];
Pages 603-604 Section 210(3) in pari materia, Acts
The words ‘if two Acts are in pari materia it will be assumed that universality of language and
meaning was intended’ (see p. 603) were approved by Costello P. in Action Aid Ltd v Revenue
Commissioners [1997] IEHC 196.
This discussion was described as ‘illuminating’ by Cranston J in R (on the application of
Mahamed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 1312 (Admin) at [27].
See also DPP v Power [2007] IESC 31.
Section 211. Consolidation Acts
Page 606 legislative history:consolidation Acts and
The passage beginning ‘It does not import parliamentary approval of judicial decisions’ was
followed in The Staff Side of the Police Negotiating Board & Anor v Secretary of State for the
Home Department [2008] EWHC 1173 (Admin) at [44].
Section 213. Meaning of enacting history
Page 610 government department:Act, in charge of
As to preparatory acts by a government department in anticipation of the passing of a Bill see R
(on the application of Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and another) v Secretary of
State for Communities and Local Government (Shropshire County Council, interested party)
[2008] EWCA Civ 148, [2008] 3 All ER 548.
Section 217. Use of Hansard
Page 616 Section 217(7) estoppel:executive
For an approving comment by Sinha J of the Indian Supreme Court on the article by FB from
which Code s 217(7) is derived see R & B Fallon Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeal (civil) 3326 of 2008) at para. 25.
Pages 620-621 Pepper v Hart, rule in:judicial application of
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury: ‘. . . I do not think this is one of those rare cases where
recourse to ministerial statements is appropriate’. As an example of 2008 practice see the whole
of this dictum in Lewisham London Borough Council v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43, [2008] 4
All ER 525, at [154].
Pages 632-633 Pepper v Hart, rule in:retreat from [New entry, not in fifth edition]
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
34
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
See Yarl’s Wood Immigration Ltd and others v Bedfordshire Police Authority [2008] EWHC
2207 (Comm), at [155].
Section 220. Special restriction on parliamentary materials (the exclusionary rule)
Pages 645-652 exclusionary rule, the:reasons for
For an important case concluding that in Ireland as a matter of judicial policy no sufficient
grounds have been established for abolishing or qualifying the established exclusionary rule
concerning recourse to parliamentary proceedings see Crilly v T. & J. Farrington Ltd. [2001]
IESC 60; [2002] 1 ILRM 161.
Pages 680-682 exclusionary rule, the:control of its procedure by court and
Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ referred to ‘a body of material drawn to our attention
which was not strictly admissible as an aid to statutory construction’: R v Zafar and others
[2008] EWCA Crim 184, [2008] 4 All ER 46, at [31].
Section 221. Use of international treaties
Page 684 treaty:interpretation of
The passage regarding the drafting of treaties was cited by the High Court of Australia in A v
Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs [1997] HCA 4; (1997) 190 CLR 225; (1997) 142
ALR 331 (see footnote 85).
Section 231. The basic rule
Page 702 contemporanea expositio
Code s 231 was cited in Sharratt v London Central Bus Co [2002] EWHC 9006 (Costs) at [46][49]. See also Scottish & Newcastle Plc v Raguz [2008] UKHL 65 at [28].
Section 232. Use of official statements on meaning of Act
Page 704 government department:guidelines issued by
As to incorrect guidelines see R (on the application of Bapio Action Ltd & Anor) v Secretary of
State for the Home Department & Anor [2008] UKHL 27.
Section 233. Use of delegated legislation made under Act
Pages 706-708 statutory interpretation:delegated legislation, by reference to
See the decision of the Federal Court of Australia in Smith v Zinifex Australia Limited [2008]
FCA 532. See also Code p. 242 n. 8.
Code s 233 was applied by Lord Scott of Foscote in Scottish & Newcastle plc v Raguz [2008]
UKHL 65, [2009] 1 All ER 763, at [28].
Section 234. Use of later Acts in pari materia
Pages 708-710 in pari materia, Acts
Code s 234 was followed by Peter Gibson LJ in Ward v Chief Adjudication Officer [1998]
EWCA Civ 1552. See also Halcyon Films LLP v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKSPC
SPC00696 at para. 83.
Page 709 mistake of law:Parliament, by
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
35
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
On the passage ‘except when legislating, Parliament has no power authoritatively to interpret
the law’ see Hawkesbury City Council & v Sammut [2002] NSWCA 18 at [71].
The passage ‘the view taken by Parliament as to the legal meaning of a doubtful enactment may
be treated as of persuasive, though not binding, authority’ was adopted by the Federal Court of
Australia in Re Michael Franciscus Kalwy v the Secretary of the Department of Social Security
[1992] FCA 489; (1992) 16 Aar 403 (1992) 38 FCR 295 (1992) 29 ALD 28, at [23].
Section 235. Use of judicial decisions on Act
Page 710 sub-rules
Code s. 235 was applied in F. v Minister for Health and Children [2008] IESC 16.
Page 711 tacit legislation
On this discussion of tacit legislation see the Hong Kong case of Kao Lee & Yip (a firm) v Lau
Wing & Anor [2008] HKCU 1667 at [35], [36],
http://law.lexisnexis.com/webcenters/hk/Daily-Cases/Kao-Lee--Yip-a-firm-v-Lau-Wing--Anor
Section 238. Statement of the rule
Page 716 functional construction: delegated legislation and
The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs takes the view that headings are a part
of a statutory instrument and are a legitimate aid to its interpretation, see Joint Committee on
Statutory
Instruments
Sixth
Report,
10
December
2007,
.
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtstatin/35/3502.htm
Section 242. The proviso
Page 723 tacit legislation:proviso, nature of
The wording of Code s 242 was approved by Laffoy J in Comptroller and Auditor General v
Ireland [1997] 1 IR 248.
Part XV. The Functional Construction Rule
Section 245. The long title
Page 727 long title:interpretative use of
See David Dodd, Statutory Interpretation in Ireland (Tottel, 2008) p. 46.
Section 247. The purpose clause 734
Page 734-735 purpose clause: nature of
‘The 2008 edition of the renowned Bennion on Statutory Interpretation tells us that a purpose
clause is “An express statement of the legislative intention”. It goes on to say: “It may apply to
the whole or part of an Act” - Lord Skelmersdale, HL Deb 17 Jun 2008, col 921.
Section 255. Heading
Page 745 heading:interpretation by reference to
Code s 255 was applied in ETI Euro Telecom International NV v Republic of Bolivia & Anor
[2008] EWCA Civ 880 at [70].
Page 746 heading:interpretation by reference to
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
36
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
The following sentence was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Grundfos Pumps Pty
Ltd v Collector of Customs [1997] FCA 234: ‘Any heading can only be an approximation, and
may not cover all the detailed matters falling within the provision to which it is attached.’
Section 256. Section name (sidenote, heading or title)
Page 747 interpretation by reference to
Code s 256 was followed by Simon Brown LJ in R (on the application of Perry & Anor v
Secretary Of State For Social Security & Anor [1998] EWCA Civ 1117. See also Re
Application by the Local Government Auditor [2003] NIQB 21 at [16].
Section 257. Format
Page 749 Act of Parliament:format [New entry, not in fifth edition]
Code s 257 was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Re Australian Securities
Commission v Neil Lucas [1992] FCA 234; (1992) 7 Ascr 676 (1992) 108 ALR 521 (1992) 36
FCR 165 (1992) 27 ALD 67, at [18].
Section 258. Punctuation
Page 751 punctuation:interpretation by reference to
The first sentence of the Comment was cited by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital
Territory in Director of Public Prosecutions v Eastman and Ors [2002] ACTSC 35 at [41] and
by the Court of Appeal of New Zealand in Official Bay Heritage Protection Society
Incorporated v Auckland City Council and another [2007] NZCA 511 at [33].
Section 259. Nature of incorporation by reference
Page 758 incorporation by reference:nature of
Code s 259 was applied by the High Court of Fiji in Naduaniwai v Commander, Republic of
Fiji Military Forces [2004] FJHC 8; Hbm0032.2004.
As to Code s. 259 see also Elizabeth Court (Bournemouth) Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2007]
UKSPC SPC00648. See also (in this table) the entry relating to definition, statutory, referential.
Section 260. Archival drafting
Pages 759-761 incorporation by reference:archival drafting
With regard to Code s 260(2), there may be a contrary intention disapplying ‘freezing’ in the
case of an Act applying a body of law for constitutional purposes. See eg Chamberlains v Lai
[2006] NZSC 70 at [86] (application of English law in New Zealand).
Division Four. Interpretative Principles Derived from Legal Policy
Part XVI. Interpretative Principles (General)
Section 263. Nature of legal policy
Page 769 legal policy:nature of
The passage beginning ‘No Act can convey . . .’ was applied by the Court of Appeal of New
Zealand to relations between courts and Parliament in Huata v Prebble & Anor [2004] NZCA
147 at [147].
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
37
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Page 769-786 legal policy:nature of
A particular principle of legal policy may form part of some branch of the law, eg the law of
defamation: see Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 432, [2008] 3 All ER
923, at [80].
Pages 777-778 champerty
The law of champerty was modified by the Criminal Law Act 1967 ss 14, 15. It may still render
a contract unlawful where it interferes with statutory duties, eg of a liquidator: Ruttle Plant Ltd
v Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (No 2) [2008] EWHC 238 (TCC),
[2009] 1 All ER 448.
Section 264. Law should serve the public interest
Pages 792-795 illegality:in bonam partem (in good faith) construction
This was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Mark Anthony Coleman and Director of
Public Prosecutions v Kevin James Gray [1994] FCA 1585 at [38]-[40].
Page 793 illegality:fraud
The term ‘fraud’ may be used in the common law sense or the equitable sense of
‘unconscionable’: see Giles v Rhind [2008] EWCA Civ 118, [2008] 3 All ER 697, at [44].
Section 265. Law should be just and fair
Page 795 justice:law should serve
As to Code s. 265 see Martin, Application for judicial review [2000] NIQB 8 at para. 20.
Section 266. Law should be certain and predictable
Page 804 user of legislation
This topic is further dealt with in FB’s 2008 article ‘Is Law Still A Learned Profession?’,
www.francisbennion.com/2008/016.htm.
Section 267. Law should not operate retrospectively
Page 807 retrospectivity:presumption against
Code s 267 was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Insurance and Superannuation
Commissioner v Wayne Cyril Hiscock [1995] FCA 1510 at [8].
Section 268. Law should be coherent and self-consistent
Page 808 legal policy:law should be consistent
Code s 268 was applied by the Singapore Court of Appeal in Lee Chez Kee v Public Prosecutor
[2008] SGCA 20 at [93]-[94].
Section 269. Law should not be subject to casual change
Pages 814-816 common law:presumption as to statutory alteration of
For the Federal Court of Australia’s views see Re Commissioner of Taxation; Deputy
Commissioner of Taxation (Melbourne); Douglas Franklin Booth; Norman Rosenbaum and
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Sydney) v Citibank Limited [1989] FCA 126 at [25].
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
38
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Section 270. Municipal law should conform to international law
Pages 822-823 legality, principle of (constitutional rights)
For the application of this principle in relation to the Terrorism Act 2000 s 58 see R v K [2008]
EWCA Crim 185, [2008] 3 All ER 525, at [16]. See also A and others v HM Treasury [2009] 2
All ER 747, [2008] EWCA Civ 1187, at [43]-[46].
The first complete paragraph at the top of page 823 was applied by the Supreme Court of New
Zealand in Lisa Cropp v A Judicial Committee and Bryan McKenzie [2008] NZSC 46 at [26].
Part XVII. Principle against doubtful penalisation
Section 271. Principle against penalisation under a doubtful law
Page 825 doubtful penalisation, principle against
In R v T [2008] EWCA Crim 815 at 4, Latham LJ referred to ‘the well-known passages in
Bennion Part XVII entitled The Principle Against Doubtful Penalisation’.
The principle against doubtful penalisation was relied on in Perrin and another v Northampton
Borough Council and others [2008] EWCA Civ 1353, [2008] 4 All ER 673, at [34].
Code s 271 was applied to delegated legislation by the Federal Court of Australia in Hanna v
Migration Agents Registration Authority [1999] FCA 1657 at [22], [23].
The principle against doubtful penalisation was discussed in Gordon, Re Application for
Judicial Review [2006] NIQB 20 at [21].
Page 826 doubtful penalisation, principle against:nature of
To the authorities listed in footnote 3 on page 826 add: Revenue & Customs v Walsh [2005]
EWCA Civ 1291 at [10]; Crofts & Ors v Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd & Ors [2005] EWCA Civ
599 at [22]; AG’s Reference 004/2003 under s 36 of Criminal Justice Act 1988 v Suchedina
[2004] EWCA Crim 1944, [2005] 1 WLR 1574, at [12].
Page 828 doubtful penalisation, principle against:nature of
As to the passage at the beginning of p. 828 see Re An Application for Judicial Review,
Landlords Association for Northern Ireland [2005] NIQB 22 at [46]. The passage headed
Where other factors are stronger was followed in Council for the Regulation of Health Care
Professionals v General Medical Council & Anor [2004] EWHC 527 (Admin) at [39]. Another
relevant authority is Bowers v Gloucester Corporation [1963] 1 QB 881 at 886-887, where
Lord Parker CJ referred to ‘having applied “all the canons of interpretation”‘.
Pages 828-829 legal policy:property rights and
For an Australian case where the principle of no deprivation without compensation was
disapplied by clear words see Mount Lawley Pty Ltd v Western Australian Planning
Commission [2004] WASCA 149 at [296].
Section 273. Statutory restraint of the person
Page 836 doubtful penalisation, principle against:physical restraint of the person
Sir Igor Judge P: ‘The starting point is the hallowed principle that each and every detention
must be justified by clear, unequivocal, legal authority’: R (on the application of G) v Chief
Constable of West Yorkshire Police [2008] EWCA Civ 28, [2008] 4 All ER 594, at [29].
Page 837 habeas corpus
‘Scott Baker LJ said that it would require the strongest words . . . to remove the ancient remedy
of habeas corpus . . .’: per Lord Hope of Craighead in Re Hilali [2008] UKHL 3, [2008] 2 All
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
39
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
ER 207, at [21]. Nevertheless that case decided that, as respects extradition decisions against
which there is a right of appeal under the Extradition Act 2003 (European arrest warrant),
habeas corpus is excluded by the clear and unequivocal wording of s. 34. Baroness Hale of
Richmond said at [32]: ‘For better or worse we have committed ourselves to this system and it
is up to us to make it work’.
Section 278. Statutory interference with economic interests
Page 846 legal policy:property rights, and
Code s 278 was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Re Centronics Systems Pty Ltd;
Maurice Latin; Tiberio Salice and Fabrizio Latin v Nintendo Company Ltd [1992] FCA 584;
(1992) 111 ALR 13 (1992) 24 IPR 481 (1992) 39 FCR 147, at [81]. It was considered by the
Federal Court of Australia in Re Registrar of Liquor Licences v Peter Iliadis; John Iliadis;
Yfigenia Iliadis; Ilias Spyridopoulos and Despina Spyridopoulos [1988] FCA 328 at [13].
Page 848 legal policy:property rights, and
This principle was described by Walker J as ‘well-established’ in The Independent Committee
for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services v Andronikou & Ors [2007]
EWHC 2307 (Admin) at [25]. As to the passage before Example 278.8 see Re An Application
for Judicial Review, Landlords Association for Northern Ireland, [2005] NIQB 22 at [41].
Section 281. Statutory interference with rights of legal process
Pages 853-858 legal policy:legal process, rights of [New entry, not in fifth edition]
Code s 281 was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Kevin Walker v Secretary,
Department of Social Security [1995] FCA 1136; (1995) 129 ALR 198 (1995) 36 ALD 513
(1995) 21 Aar 147, at [19].
Pages 857-858 Section 281 appeal:right of
As to the right of a non-party to be joined as an appellant or respondent see George Wimpey UK
Ltd v Tewkesbury Borough Council (MA Holdings Ltd intervening) [2008 EWCA Civ 12,
[2008] 3 All ER 859.
Division Five. Interpretative Presumptions Based on the Nature of Legislation
Part XVIII. Interpretative Presumptions (General)
Section 285. Presumption that literal meaning to be followed
Page 864 literal construction:presumption regarding [New entry, not in fifth edition]
Code s 285 was considered in Maguire v Director of Public Prosecutions [2004] 3 IR 241 and
Kelly -v- Minister for Defence & Anor [2008] IEHC 223.
Pages 868-869 time:commonsense construction rule and
See Knowsley Housing Trust v White [2008] UKHL 70 at [12]. Where power is given to act
against a person it will be inferred that it is to be done within a reasonable period: R (on the
application of SK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 1204,
[2009] 2 All ER 365, at [8], [9].
Section 286. Presumption that consequential construction to be given
Page 871 consequential construction:‘beneficent’ consequences of
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
40
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
See R (on the application of Hammersmith & Fulham LBC and others v Secretary of State for
Health [1997] EWHC Admin 658. The principle was applied by the Court of Appeal of New
Zealand in Warwick Henderson Gallery Limited v Weston [2005] NZCA 272 at [41].
Page 871 notice, statutory:invalid
As to the legal effect of an invalid statutory notice (Example 286.2) see Sinclair Gardens
Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Poets Chase Freehold Co Ltd [2007] EWHC 1776 (Ch), [2008]
2 All ER 187.
Section 287. Presumption that rectifying construction to be given
Page 875 rectifying construction:examples of
For a transitional problem in a tax case where both under the old law and the new law the
amount of a penalty would have been £1,000 but defective drafting meant this was not the
literal meaning in a transitional case (and in fact there was no literal meaning) see Lessex Ltd v
HM Inspector of Taxes [2003] UKSC SPC00391.
The first sentence of the Comment was followed in Australia in Parks Holdings Pty Ltd
(trading as Gladstone Chemicals) and CEO of Customs [2001] AATA 562 at [156].
Pages 875-876 rectifying construction:nature of
The Inco Europe Case (the subject of Example 287.1) was applied in R (on the application of
Kelly and another) v Secretary of State for Justice, Re: Gibson [2008] EWCA Civ 177, [2008]
3 All ER 844, at [12], [19] (drafting error in statutory instrument).
Page 885-887 rectifying construction:casus omissus
For a case where the Singapore Court of Appeal applied Code s 287 to give a strained
construction so as to rectify a drafting error creating a casus omissus see Kok Chong Weng and
Others v Wiener Robert Lorenz and Others (Ankerite Pte Ltd, intervener) [2009] SGCA 7 at
[49].
Page 889 rectifying construction:conflicting texts
R v Moore (see footnote 4) was followed in Australia in Parks Holdings Pty Ltd (trading as
Gladstone Chemicals) and CEO of Customs [2001] AATA 562 at [156].
Section 288. Presumption that updating construction to be given
Pages 889-890 updating construction:definition of
The wording of Code s 288(2) was approved by Lord Woolf in R (on the application of A) v
Westminster City Council [1997] EWCA Civ 1032 and Denham J in Keane v An Bord
PleanálaI [1997] 3 IR 200 (dissenting judgment).
Code s 288 should not be construed too widely: see the cautionary words in R (on the
application of Hammersmith & Fulham LBC & Ors v Secretary Of State For Health [1998]
EWCA Civ 1300.
Page 890 Act of Parliament:fixed-time
It was held by the High Court of Australia in Giannarelli v Wraith [1988] HCA 52; (1988) 165
CLR 543 at [18] that a subsection which rendered a barrister liable for negligence to the same
extent as a solicitor was on 23 November 1891 liable to his client for negligence as a solicitor
was ‘plainly a “fixed-time” provision’ (followed in D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid
[2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1; (2005) 214 ALR 92; (2005) 79 ALJR 755 at [23]).
Page 890 Section 288(2) updating construction:presumption favouring
In Rani Santosh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 1493 the
Federal Court of Australia applied Code s 288(2) to rule that a reference in an Act to
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
41
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
regulations made under it referred such regulations as amended from time to time. The court
also applied s 288(2) in Wojciech Marian Szelagowicz v John W Stocker, Brian G Gibbs,
Gerald Neil Haddad and William Mark Tunningley [1994] FCA 1110; (1994) 35 ALD 16, at
[18].
Page 892 updating construction:definition of
The expression ‘Yet their words remain law’ was cited by the Israeli Supreme Court in Solel
Boneh Building and Infrastructure Ltd and another v Estate of the late Ahmed Abed Alhamid
deceased and others (2006) LCA 8925/04 at [8], where the court went on to cite President
Barak’s dictum: ‘Interpretation is an ever-changing process. Modern content should be given to
the old language. Thus the disparity between the statute and life is reduced. Against this
background it is correct to say, as Radbruch did, that the interpreter may understand the statute
better than the creator of the statute, and that the statute is always wiser than its creator. This
leads to the interpretive approach that is accepted in England, whereby statute should be given
an updating interpretation . . .’
Page897-899 updating construction:law, changes in
As to Example 288.15 see Sonea v Mehedinti District Court, Romania [2009] EWHC 89
(Admin), [2009] 2 All ER 821.
Page 907-909 updating construction:words, change of meaning of, and
For a reference to ‘the modern meaning of “rent”’ see Mason v Boscawen [2008] EWHC 3100
(Ch) at [52].
Page 908 box principle
The Court of Appeal departed from the principle of the decision described in Example 288.37
in R v Cockburn [2008] EWCA Crim 316; [2008] 2 All ER 1153.
The Family Court of Australia upheld the box principle in Attorney-General for the
Commonwealth & ‘Kevin and Jennifer’ & Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
[2003] FamCA 94 at [137][138].
Pages 910-911 Section 288(3) private Act:interpretation of
This passage was relied on in Re Scottish Water [2004] ScotsCS 41 at [19]. There is an
interesting discussion of it by the High Court of Australia in Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd
[1995] HCA 24; (1995) 131 ALR 422; (1995) 69 ALJR 797; (1995) 185 CLR 410 (see passage
at footnote 148).
Part XIX. The Mischief and its Remedy
Section 294. Party-political mischiefs
Page 928 law-churning
This topic is further dealt with in FB’s 2008 article ‘Law-Churning and the Sociologists’.
Part XX. Purposive Construction
Section 304. Nature of purposive construction
Page 946 purposive construction:nature of
The comment beginning ‘Lord Diplock’s third point is, with respect, erroneous’ was
characterized as ‘perceptive’ by Bignold J in Director-General Department Of Land And Water
Conservation v Jackson And Ors [2003] NSWLEC 81 at [90].
Page 949 deeming
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
42
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
As to the passage regarding deeming provisions on pp. 949-951 see UK Social Security and
Child Support Commissioners’ Decisions [2003] UKSSCSC CH_4546_2002 at para. 35.
Page 950 deeming
The sentence beginning ‘The intention of a deeming provision . . .’ was applied in Australia;
see Bayliss and Medical Board of Queensland [1997] QICmr 6, (1997) 3 QAR 489, at [38].
Section 305. Purposive-and-literal construction
Page 951 purposive construction:purposive-and-literal construction
The distinction between purposive-and-literal construction (Code s. 305) and purposive-andstrained construction (Code s. 306) is discussed in James, Re An Application for Judicial
Review [2005] NIQB 38 at [18].
Page 952 purposive construction:purposive-and-literal construction
Arden LJ approved the passage on p. 952 under the heading Ambiguity in B Osborn & Co Ltd v
Dior [2003] EWCA Civ 281 at paragraph 53.
Section 306. Purposive-and-strained construction
Page 955 purposive construction:purposive-and-strained construction
The distinction between purposive-and-strained construction (Code s. 306) and purposive-andliteral construction (Code s. 305) is discussed in James, Re An Application for Judicial Review
[2005] NIQB 38 at [18].
For an example of purposive-and-strained construction see [1999] NISSCSC C55/99-00(IB) at
para. 14.
Part XXI. Construction Against ‘Absurdity’
Pages 969-1008 Sections 312-318 absurdity
Code Pt XXI (ss 312-318) was described as ‘most instructive’ by Tadgell JA of the Supreme
Court of Victoria Court of Appeal, see QBE Workers Compensation (Vic) Ltd v Freisleben &
Nisselle; City of Bayside v Johns & Nisselle [1999] VSCA 207 at [19].
Section 312. Presumption that ‘absurd’ result not intended
Page 969 Section 312(1) absurdity:meaning of
See Procurator Fiscal, Aberdeen v Aberdeen City Council [1999] ScotHC 176; C & ors v
Minister for Health and Children [2008] IESC 33. Code s 312(1) was adopted by the Court of
Appeal of New Zealand in Frucor Beverages Limited v R T Fyers & Ors [2001] NZCA 109 at
[28].
Section 313. Avoiding an unworkable or impracticable result
Pages 971-979 absurdity:impracticality
See Scottish & Newcastle plc v Raguz [2008] UKHL 65, [2009] 1 All ER 763 where Lord
Hoffmann (at [10]) sought to avoid ‘some remarkably silly consequences’ and Lord Walker of
Gestingthorpe (at [65]) said ‘Some violence, or at least robust treatment, must be meted out to
some part of s 17 in order to make the section as a whole workable’.
In Braganza v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 318 at [55] the
Federal Court of Australia treated as unworkable a construction that required ‘a person who has
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
43
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
no money, and therefore seeks to be excused from payment of a fee, [to] pay that fee in order to
ensure that the application for waiver is considered’.
See entry for pp 969-1008 s. 312-318 ‘absurdity’ above.
Section 314. Avoiding an inconvenient result
Pages 979-986 absurdity:inconvenience, avoidance of
See entry for pp 969-1008 s. 312-318 ‘absurdity’ above.
‘It is of course desirable to avoid inconvenient results, if the statutory language permits. But the
Agricultural Holdings Act does not always permit the avoidance of inconvenient or surprising
results . . . The inconvenient result in the present case is in my judgment simply an example of
the law of unintended consequences . . .’ See Mason v Boscawen [2008] EWHC 3100 (Ch) at
[54].
Section 315. Avoiding an anomalous or illogical result
Page 986 Section 315 absurdity:anomaly
(1) Where an anomaly cannot be corrected because the literal meaning is too strong it may be
possible to do justice by staying court proceedings as oppressive: see R v Morgan, R v Bygrave
[2008] EWCA Crim 1323, [2008] 4 All ER 890. (2) Code s 315 was considered in Re WD
[2007] ScotCS CSOH_139. (3) Code s 315 was applied in R (on the application of Etame) v
Secretary of State for the Home Department and another [2008] EWHC 1140 (Admin), at [38],
[43].
This includes supporting an enactment designed to reduce inconvenience: Beoku-Betts v
Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] UKHL 39, [2008] 4 All ER 1146, at [43]
(‘Surely Parliament was attempting to streamline and simplify proceedings’).
Section 316. Avoiding a futile or pointless result
Pages 986-1003 absurdity:futility
‘It seems difficult to attribute to Parliament a deliberate intention that the parties should have to
go through what is, in effect, a sham arbitration’: Mason v Boscawen [2008] EWHC 3100 (Ch)
at [40].
See entry for pp 969-1008 s. 312-318 ‘absurdity’ above.
Section 317. Avoiding an artificial result
Pages 1003-1006 absurdity:artificiality
See entry for pp 969-1008 s. 312-318 ‘absurdity’ above.
Section 318. Avoiding a disproportionate counter-mischief
Pages 1006-1008 absurdity:counter-mischief [New entry, not in fifth edition]
See entry for pp 969-1008 s. 312-318 ‘absurdity’ above.
Part XXII. Construction Against Evasion
Section 319. Presumption that evasion not to be allowed
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
44
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Page 1009 evasion of Act:presumption against
In Repatriation Commission v William Harold Morris & Anor [1997] FCA 152 the Federal
Court of Australia applied Code s 319 to prevent a tribunal delaying unreasonably in giving its
decision. See also Re Australian Building Construction Employees’ and Builders Labourers’
Federation v the Master Builders’ Association of New South Wales [1986] FCA 380 at [28].
Section 320. Evasion distinguished from avoidance
Pages 1014-1017 evasion of Act:avoidance, distinguished from
What cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly: Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Belperio [2006]
VSC 14 at [248]-[251] [Australia].
Section 322. Methods of evasion: doing indirectly what must not be done directly
Page 1023 evasion of Act:indirect
Code s 322 was applied by New South Wales Appeal Court in Fairfield City Council v N & S
Olivieri P/L [2003] NSWCA 41 at [26].
Section 324. Methods of evasion: repetitious acts
Page 1025 evasion of Act:repetitious acts, by
Code s 324 has been adopted in Australia: see Secretary, Department of Treasury and Finance
v Kelly [2001] VSCA 246 at [10]; Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Belperio [2006] VSC 14 at [248]-[251].
Section 326. Construction which otherwise defeats legislative purpose
Page 1030 statutory power:invalid exercise of
The Australian Judge Merkel J said ‘there is particular force’ in the statement at Code p. 1030
that ‘A construction will not be allowed which would enable persons charged with a statutory
power or function to act in such a way as to truncate or otherwise modify what the legislature
intended’: Chun Wang v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 70).
Earlier Merkel J had said of this passage: ‘the real point being made in the passage from
Bennion is that where a judge concludes that the legislature could not have intended that a
statute could operate in a manner which defeats its manifest object or purpose, then an
alternative interpretation must be preferred’ (see Jurg Bollag & Anor v The Attorney-General of
the Commonwealth of Australia & Anor [1997] FCA 1146). The passage was also relied on in
Staines v Workcover/Allianz Australia Workers Compensation (S A) Ltd (Air International Pty
Ltd) [2004] SAWCT 127 and in Byrne v Transport Accident Commission [2008] VSC 92 at
[52].
Page 1030 land:meaning of
In relation to the definition of ‘land’ in the Interpretation Act 1978 Sch 1 (see Example 326.5)
note that the definition will not be attracted where a different term such as ‘the commons’ is
used: Housden and another v Conservators of Wimbledon and Putney Commons [2008] EWCA
Civ 200, [2008] 3 All ER 1038, at [26].
Part XXIII. Application of Ancillary Rules of Law
Section 327. Presumption that ancillary rules of law apply
Page 1033 ancillary rules of law:implied application of
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
45
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Arden LJ has given reasons why Parliament might not specify an ancillary rule of law but leave
it as implied, see Revenue & Customs v BUPA Purchasing Ltd & Ors [2007] EWCA Civ 542 at
[46] and London Borough of Lewisham v Malcolm & Anor [2007] EWCA Civ 763 at [57], [62].
The presumption specified in Code s. 327 was described as ‘well settled’ in King, Re
Application for Judicial Review [2002] NICA 48 at 58.
Page 1036 ancillary rules of law:implied application of
As to the passage regarding contrary intention on p. 1036 see Moore v Scottish Daily Record &
Sunday Mail Ltd [2007] ScotCS CSOH_24 at [22], [60], [71] (statutory modification of
contract rules).
Page 1042 criminal law:mens rea
For an amplification of the reference to mens rea on p. 1042 see FB’s 2008 article ‘Offences by
Children: The Mental Element’.
Section 329. Presumption that public law decision-making rules apply
Page 1050 decision-making rules:implied application of
The presumption specified in Code s. 329 was described as ‘well settled’ in King, Re
Application for Judicial Review [2002] NICA 48 at 58.
Pages 1055-1060 natural justice:fairness
‘The rules of natural justice are one of the most important pillars of the common law’: Dyson
LJ in McNally v Secretary Of State For Education & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 332 at [38]-[40].
See further X v West Midlands Police [2004] EWHC 61 (Admin) at [67]; Hampstead Heath
Winter Swimming Club & Anor v Corporation of London & Anor [2005] EWHC 713 (Admin)
at [33].
Pages 1056-1057 decision-making rules:legitimate expectation
On the development of the doctrine of legitimate expectation see R (Bhatt Murphy) v The
Independent Assessor [2008] EWCA Civ 755.
Page 1062 court:functus officio
As to when a court can reopen its decision see R (on the application of AM (Cameroon)) v
Asylum & Immigration Tribunal & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 100, [2008] 4 All ER 1159. As to
the power of a decision-maker to revoke{decision-making rules:revocation of decision [New
entry, not in fifth edition]} his decision see R (on the application of Dwr Cymru Cyf) v
Environment Agency [2009] EWHC 453 (Admin), [2009] 2 All ER 919, at [22].
Section 330. Presumption that rules of equity apply
Page 1064 equity, rules of:implied application of
For the implied application of the equitable doctrine of acquiescence see Watson and others v
Croft Promosport Ltd [2008] EWHC 759 (QB), [2008] 3 All ER 1171, at [74].
For the need, where equitable doctrines arise in a case, to have a judge who is familiar with
those doctrines see The Serious Fraud Office v Lexi Holdings Plc [2008] EWCA Crim 1443,
[2009] 1 All ER 586, at [92].
Page 1067 estoppel:general
See Sinclair Gardens Investments (Kensington) Ltd v Poets Chase Freehold Co Ltd [2007]
EWHC 1776 (Ch), [2008] 2 All ER 187.
Section 331. Presumption that rules of contract law apply
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
46
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Page 1069 contract:application of law of
See R (on the application of Association of British Travel Agents Ltd (ABTA)) v Civil Aviation
Authority (CAA) & Anor [2006] EWHC 13 (Admin) at [103]. The court may apply contract law
even where, because of the interposition of statute, a true contract is not in question: Warren v
Random House Group Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 834, [2009] 2 All ER 245, at [17] (case under
Defamation Act 1996 ss 2-4).
Page 1070 contract:application of law of
Effect of Act on existing contracts This passage was applied by the Court of Appeal of New
Zealand in Australasian Correctional Management Limited v Corrections Association of New
Zealand (Inc) & Anor [2002] NZCA 181 at [18].
Page 1071 contract:application of law of
As to the passage regarding contrary intention on p. 1071 see Moore v Scottish Daily Record &
Sunday Mail Ltd [2007] ScotCS CSOH_24 at [22], [60], [71] (statutory modification of rules of
offer and acceptance).
Section 332. Presumption that rules of property law apply
Pages 1072-1073 private Act:construction of
The passage on pp. 1072-1073 was approved by Laffoy J in Pierce v Dublin Cemeteries
Committee [2006] IEHC 182.
This passage is applicable to the construction of private Acts in Ireland: Pierce trading as
Swords Memorials & Anor v The Dublin Cemeteries Committee & Ors [2006] IEHC 182.
Section 334. Presumption that rules of criminal law apply
Pages 1083-1084 nemo debet bis vexari
Anomalously, the principle of this maxim does not apply where the first ‘jeopardy’ was vitiated
by a procedural defect, eg a conviction inadvertently obtained on unsworn evidence as in R v
Marsham, ex p Lawrence [1912] 2 KB 263 (see Green & Green Scaffolding Ltd v Staines
Magistrates’ Court [2008] EWHC 1443 (Admin) at para 10).
Section 335. Rules of evidence
Page 1086 evidence:hearsay
As to hearsay at common law and under the 2003 Act (footnote 3) see R. v Athwal [2009]
EWCA Crim 789; [2009] Crim L. R. 726.
Page 1088 evidence:fresh
Example 335.6 was applied in Iarnroid Eireann -v- Social Welfare Tribunal [2007] IEHC 406
at para. 8.1.
Pages 1088-1091 standard of proof:civil
On the question of whether the civil standard varies with the seriousness of the matter see the
important case of Re B (children) (sexual abuse: standard of proof) [2008] UKHL 35, [2008] 4
All ER 1. See also R (on the application of D) v Life Sentence Review Commissioners [2008]
UKHL 33, [2008] 4 All ER 992.
The statement on p. 1088 that an enactment will be construed strictly where it allows a
departure from the rules of evidence{evidence:rules of, implied importation of} was followed
in the Hong Kong case of Tse Mui Chun v Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2003)
FACC No 4 at para 53 where the court (which included Lord Scott of Foscote) said, citing that
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
47
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
statement, ‘if a statutory shortcut to the proof of essential matters is to be taken advantage of it
is essential that the conditions of the statutory shortcut be strictly observed’.
Pages 1092-1094 evidence:exceptions rule
The judgment in Director of Public Prosecutions v Wright [2009] EWHC 105 (Admin)
(prosecution under Hunting Act 2004 s 1) contains important dicta and citations on this rule,
particularly in relation to art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the
distinction between the ‘persuasive’ and ‘evidential’ burdens on an accused.
Part XXIV.Application of Ancillary Legal Maxims
Section 342. Double detriment: bona fides non patitur, ut his eadem exigatur
Page 1116 double jeopardy
‘. . . the double jeopardy rule cannot be resuscitated under the guise of the interests of justice’:
R v A [2008] EWCA Crim 2908, [2009] 2 All ER 898, at [41].
Section 343. De minimis principle: de minimis non curat lex
Page 1116-1123 de minimis non curat lex
See Lt. Col. S N Saggar Ministry of Defence [2004] UKEAT 1385_01_1006 at para. 48.
On the implied application of this maxim in relation to the definition of ‘game of chance’ in the
Gaming Act 1968 s 52(1) see R v Kelly [2008] 2 All ER 840, [2008] EWCA Crim 137, at para.
11.
On the implied application of this maxim in relation to the Natural Environment and Rural
Communities Act 2006 s 67 see R (on the application of Warden and Fellows of Winchester
College and another) v Hampshire County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 431, [2008] 3 All ER
717, at [54].
On the suggested application of this maxim see Arden LJ in Roberts v Secretary of State for
Social Security [2001] EWCA Civ 910 at paragraphs 8-15.
The maxim is applied in Australia, see: Glen Michael Belbin and Australian Maritime Safety
Authority [1993] AATA 253, (1993) 18 AAR 208 (1993) 30 ALD 432, at [37]; Farnell
Electronic Components Pty Ltd v Collector of Customs [1996] FCA 1135; Lloyd v Police
[2004] SASC 278 at [57]-[69]; Zoran Lozevski v Goodman Fielder Consumer Foods Pty Ltd.
[2004] NSWIRComm 314 at [57]-[59]. The Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special
Administrative Region held in Prem Singh v Director of Immigration (FACV No. 7 of 2002) at
[73] that de minimis applied, together with the other common law rules of interpretation, to the
Basic Law.
In criminal cases the maxim can apply in aid of the prosecution: see Briere v Hailstone [1968]
112 SJ 767 (conviction for excess speed upheld on the de minimis principle where two of the
street lamps were too far apart by 1.5 yards).
As to the application of the maxim in relation to administrative decisions see A and others v
HM Treasury [2008] EWCA Civ 1187, [2009] 2 All ER 747, at [142].
Section 346. Impossibility: lex non cogit ad impossibilia
Page 1129 impossibility
Code s 346 was approved and followed by Dyson LJ in R (on the application of Warden and
Fellows of Winchester College and another) v Hampshire County Council [2008] EWCA Civ
431, [2008] 3 All ER 717, at [50], [51].
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
48
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Section 347. Necessity: necessitas non habet legem
Pages 1133-1136 duress
For case management aspects see R. v S and I [2009] EWCA Com 85; [2009] Crim. LR 723.
Section 350. Presumption of correctness: omnia praesumuntur rite et solemniter esse acta
Page 1144 correctness, presumption of
Code s 350 was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Re Sandvik Australia Pty Limited v
Commonwealth of Australia and Collector of Customs [1990] FCA 386 at [12].
Section 351. Agency:qui facit per alium facit per se
Page 1146 agency
The sentence preceding Example 351.1 was followed in Midlands Co-Operative Society Ltd v
HM Revenue & Customs [2008] EWCA Civ 305 at [14] and Hanoman v London Borough of
Southwark [2008] EWCA Civ 624 at [37].
Section 352. Vigilance: vigilantibus non dormientibus leges subveniunt
Page 1149 time:performance, of [New entry, not in fifth edition]
In ruling that a statutory matter is to be carried out within a reasonable time when the precise
time is not specified, the Federal Court of Australia relied on Code s 352 together with the
reference to a reasonable time on Code p. 285 in relation to Example 74.4 (see Susie Boswell v
the Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade [1993] FCA 562; (1993) 118
ALR 719 (1993) 46 FCR 434, at [17]).
Page 1149 vigilantibus non dormientibus leges subveniunt
Code s. 352 (formerly s. 357) was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Re Janice
Beverly Neal v Commissioner of Superannuation [1987] FCA 182 at [7].
Section 353. Volenti principle: volenti non fit injuria
Page 1152 volenti non fit injuria
Example 353.4 gives an example of an enactment which recognises the principle of this maxim.
Another example is the Animals Act 1971 s 5(2). Ormrod LJ said in Cummings v Granger
[1977] QB 397 that the interpretation of s 5(2) should not be complicated too much with ‘the
old, long history of the doctrine of volenti’.
Division Six. Linguistic Canons of Construction
Part XXV. Linguistic Canons of Construction: General
Section 355. Construction of Act or other instrument as a whole
Pages 1157-1160 words:every word to be given meaning
This passage was relied on in Re Mary Robertson [2001] ScotCS 94 at [11].
Pages 1160-1161 words:different words given different meanings
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
49
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
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 -vMinister for Defence & Anor [2008] IEHC 223.
Pages 1160-1161 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 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 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 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].
Section 364. Composite expressions
Page 1192 ordinary meaning:nature of
On the meaning of ‘and’ and ‘or’ see Pilling and others v Reynolds and another [2008] EWHC
316 (QB), [2009] 1 All ER 163, at [21].
Page 1193 existence
Regarding the first line on this page, a reference to a collective noun, such as a ‘woodland’,
which includes things in posse as well as things in esse is taken to include both: see Palm
Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2009] EWHC
220 (Admin) at [42] (tree preservation order).
Pages 1193-1197 composite expressions
Code s 364 was applied by New South Wales Appeal Court in Victims Compensation Fund v
Scott Brown & Ors [2002] NSWCA 155 at (ix).
Pages 1196-1197 weightless drafting
This passage was applied by New South Wales Appeal Court in Victims Compensation Fund v
Scott Brown & Ors [2002] NSWCA 155 at (ix).
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
50
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
For examples of weightless drafting see Palm Developments Ltd v Secretary of State for
Communities and Local Government [2009] EWHC 220 (Admin) at [26], where Cranston J
said that such provisions ‘avoid the need for unprofitable disputes’.
Page 1198 hendiadys
See the Australian case of Victims Compensation Fund Corporation v Brown [2003] HCA 54;
(2003) 201 ALR 260; (2003) 77 ALJR 1797, at [34].
Section 365. Technical terms (general)
Page 1198 technical terms:interpretation of
For a discussion by the Supreme Court of Victoria of the passage beginning ‘Where it is
possible to identify a particular expertise . . .’ see The Distribution Group Ltd v Commissioner
of Taxation [2000] VSC 418 at [32].
Section 366. Technical legal terms
Pages 1199-1200 free-standing term
In Schanka v Employment National (Administration) Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 202 at [13] the
Federal Court of Australia discussed this passage and held that ‘duress’ was not a free-standing
legal term. This was applied in Maritime Union of Australia v Burnie Port Corporation Pty Ltd
[2000] FCA 1189 at [26].
Section 367. Technical non-legal terms
Page 1205 technical terms:non-legal terms
As to the case dealt with in Example 367.7 see the Irish case Quigley -v- Harris [2008] IEHC
403.
Section 369. Neologisms and slang
Page 1209 neologism
Code s 369 was cited by the Federal Court of Australia in Bozidar Jankovic and Ljubica Kuga v
Minister of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs [1994] FCA 1316; (1994) 35
ALD 261, at [27].
Section 373. Homonyms
Pages 1217-1219 homonym
On the use of a word with different meanings in the same section see Secretary of State for the
Home Department v Immigration Appeal Tribunal [2001] EWHC Admin 261 at [34]-[35].
Section 375. Judicial notice of meaning
Pages 1221-1222 judicial notice:meaning of words, of
On the passage headed Law or fact? see Procter & Gamble UK v Revenue & Customs [2008]
EWHC 1558 (Ch) at [27].
Part XXVIII. Linguistic Canons of Construction: Elaboration of Meaning of Words and
Phrases
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
51
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Section 378. Noscitur a sociis principle
Page 1225 noscitur a sociis principle
For the application of this principle by the Federal Court of Australia in relation to the term
‘leaflet’ see Australian Postal Corp v Pac-Rim Printing Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 640 at [60]-[66].
Section 384. Ejusdem generis principle:general words followed by narrower genusdescribing terms
Page 1242 ejusdem generis principle:general words followed by narrower term
Code s 384 was followed by the Supreme Court of Queensland Court of Appeal in Pepper v AG (Qld) [No 2] [2008] QCA 207 at [32].
Section 388. Reddendo singula singulis principle
Pages 1247-1249 reddendo singula singulis principle
This principle was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Switzerland Insurance Australia
Ltd v Mowie Fisheries Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 231 and in Minister of State for Employment
Workplace Relations and Small Business v Community and Public Sector Union [2001] FCA
316‘. It was also applied by the Supreme Court of Norfolk Island in Minister for Immigration &
Community Services v Summerscales [2000] NFSC 4 at [37].
Section 389. Expressum facit cessare tacitum 1249
Pages 1249-1250 expressum facit cessare tacitum
Lord Rodger of Earlsferry gave a good example of this principle in Kay v Commissioner of Police
of the Metropolis [2008] UKHL 69 at [42]: ‘Where the Act contains a specific provision prohibiting
certain processions, there is no room for implying into another provision a requirement which would
have the effect of prohibiting a different type of procession by exposing the organisers to a criminal
conviction and fine’.
Section 390. Expressio unius principle: description
Page 1250 expressio unius principle:nature of
Code s 390 was relied on in Perrin and another v Northampton Borough Council and others
[2008] EWCA Civ 1353, [2008] 4 All ER 673, at [32].
Section 393. Expressio unius principle: words of extension
Page 1255 expressio unius principle:extending words and
Code s. 393 was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Re David Harold Eastman v
Commissioner of Superannuation [1987] FCA 188 at [29]-[30].
Section 397. Implication where statutory description only partly met
Page 1262 Section 397(1) implication:statutory description, partially met, and
See comments on Code s 397(1) by Arden LJ in Roberts v Secretary of State for Social Security
[2001] EWCA Civ 910 at paragraphs 11-14.
Page 1262 Section 397(2) implication:statutory description, partially met, and
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
52
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Code s 397(2) was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Switzerland Insurance Australia
Ltd v Mowie Fisheries Pty Ltd [1997] FCA 231.
Division Seven. Europe
Part XXIX. Community law and the European Court
Section 404. Legitimate expectation
Pages 1278-1279 decision-making rules:legitimate expectation
‘ . . . a claim to a legitimate expectation can be based only upon a promise which is “clear,
unambiguous and devoid of relevant qualification”: see Bingham LJ in R v Inland Revenue
Commissioners, Ex p MFK Underwriting Agents Ltd [1990] 1 WLR 1545, 1569‘. (R (On The
Application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State For Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [2008]
UKHL 61, [2008] 3 WLR 955, per Lord Hoffmann at [60]).
Section 412. Transposing of Community law
Pages 1290-1293 transposition of European Community law:UK transposing enactment,
interpretation of
‘This may be another case in which the draftsman thought he could clarify the meaning of a
directive but would have done better to leave its language alone’: Spencer-Franks v Kellogg
Brown and Root Ltd and others [2008] UKHL 46, [2009] 1 All ER 269, at [26].
For an error in transposing see Marks & Spencer plc v Revenue and Customs Commissioners
[2009] UKHL 8,at [8].
Section 413. Effect of Community law on UK enactments
Pages 1297-1300 European Community Law:UK law, effect of, on
See R (on the application of Irving) v Secretary of State for Transport [2008] EWHC 1200
(Admin), which involved a strained construction of the Road Traffic Act 1988 s 92 to comply
with a directive which had not been transposed into UK law.
Section 417. Remedies against Member States
Pages 1308-1309 European Community law:member states’ laws
A claim for Francovich damages against the government for failing to implement Community
law is a claim in tort to which the Limitation Act 1980 s 2 applies: Spencer v Secretary of State
for Work and Pensions [2008] EWCA Civ 750, [2009] 1 All ER 314, at [17], [46].
Part XXX. Human Rights Act 1998
Section 419. Nature of the Convention rights
Pages 1318 European Convention on Human Rights:Art 13
See R (on the application of Etame) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and another
[2008] EWHC 1140 (Admin), at [47].
Section 422. Judicial declaration of incompatibility (primary legislation)
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
53
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Pages 1330-1333 incompatibility, declaration of, under Human Rights Act 1998:primary
legislation, in respect of
For the quashing of a declaration relating to art 3 (torture) of the Convention see Secretary of
State for the Home Department v Nasseri [2009] 1 All ER 116. For the making of a declaration
in relation to the Care Standards Act 2000 s 82(4)(b) see R (on the application of Wright and
others) v Secretary of State for Health and another [2009] UKHL 3, [2009] 2 All ER 129
(Court of Appeal’s proposal to write in words under Human Rights Act Act 1998 s 3 held
inappropriate). Lady Hale said at [38]: ‘It is not for us to attempt to rewrite the legislation’.
Section 426. Ministers’ statements of compatibility regarding Bills
Page 1334 Human Rights Act 1998:compatibility, ministers’ statements of
In relation to Code s 426(1)(b) (reproducing the Human Rights Act 1998 s 19(1)(b)), see R (On
The Application of Animal Defenders International v Secretary of State For Culture, Media and
Sport [2008] 2 WLR 781, [2008] UKHL 15 para [13] (in relation to Bill for the
Communications Act 2003, Minister made statement under s 19(1)(b)).
Section 443. Article 5 of Convention (right to liberty and security)
Pages 1350-1352 European Convention on Human Rights:Art 5 (liberty and security)
For a finding that the Criminal Justice Act 1991 s 35(1) contravenes art 5(4) and that a
declaration of incompatibility should be made see R (on the application of Black) v Secretary of
State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 359, [2008] 4 All ER 151.
Section 455. Article 1 of First Protocol (protection of property)
Pages 1368-1369 European Convention on Human Rights:First Protocol, Art 1 (protection of
property)
It would infringe Art 1 to hold that the sole surviving member of an unincorporated
association cannot claim the assets of the association and that they vest in the Crown as bona
vacantia: Hanchett-Stamford v Attorney General and another [2008] EWHC 330 (Ch), [2008]
4 All ER 323, at [47]-[49].
Section 463. Meaning of ‘the Convention’.
Page 1376 Human Rights Act 1998:’Convention, the’, meaning of [New entry, not in fifth edition]
For the effect of the words ‘as it has effect for the time being in relation to the United
Kingdom’ see R (On The Application of Bancoult) v Secretary of State For Foreign and
Commonwealth Affairs [2008] UKHL 61, [2008] 3 WLR 955, at [65].
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
54
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
Appendix H Some responses to Code s 288 (updating construction)
II - Updating Construction and Common Law
Pages 1459-1460 updating construction:common law, and
See the Australian case of Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Kumar [2009] HCA 10,
at [21].
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
55
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
INDEX TO UPDATING NOTES
Note Except where the contrary appears, the Index uses the same wording as is used for entries in the
Index to the fifth edition, www.francisbennion.com/2008/013/index. Occasionally a new entry is
added to that Index and this is stated.
absurdity ...................................................... 43
commonsense construction rule................. 31
anomaly ..................................................... 44
examples of application of ........................ 31
artificiality ................................................. 44
composite act or omission .......................... 26
counter-mischief [New entry, not in fifth
composite expressions................................. 50
edition] .................................................. 44
consequential construction
futility........................................................ 44
‘beneficent’ consequences of .................... 40
impracticality ............................................ 43
mandatory and directory provisions, and .. 17
inconvenience, avoidance of ..................... 44
constitutional rights .................................... 21
meaning of ................................................ 43
construe, meaning of................................... 16
academic point............................................. 20
contemporanea expositio ............................. 35
Act of Parliament
contract
fixed-time .................................................. 41
application of law of ................................. 47
format [New entry, not in fifth edition] ..... 37
correctness, presumption of ....................... 49
overriding effect of ................................... 21
counter-intuitive readings .......................... 28
advocate
court
lay.............................................................. 19
adversarial system..................................... 27
agency ........................................................... 49
functus officio ........................................... 46
guidelines by ............................................. 19
amendment to Act
delegated legislation, by............................ 23
criminal law
reference to amended Act ......................... 24
mens rea.................................................... 46
textual........................................................ 23
criminal procedure
cautions [New entry, not in fifth edition] .. 19
ancillary rules of law
implied application of ......................... 45, 46
Crown
anti-social behaviour order (ASBO) .......... 18
ambit of concept ....................................... 21
Crown Prosecution Service ........................ 18
appeal
right of....................................................... 40
cujus est solum ejus est usque ad coelum et
ad inferos [New entry, not in fifth edition]26
application of Act
foreign elements within the territory, and . 26
de minimis non curat lex ............................. 48
non-resident Britons, to ............................. 26
decision-making rules
principles governing.................................. 26
implied application of ............................... 46
assessor ......................................................... 27
legitimate expectation ......................... 46, 53
declaratory enactment ................................ 21
Attorney General v Great Eastern Railway
Co., rule in ......................................... 23, 29
deeming .................................................. 42, 43
Barras principle ........................................... 34
definition, statutory
clarifying ................................................... 32
Bill, parliamentary
legal status of ............................................ 21
contrary intention and ............................... 32
enlarging ................................................... 32
Book, this
nature of .................................................... 16
potency of term defined ............................ 32
box principle ................................................ 42
referential .................................................. 32
Brown direction ........................................... 18
substantive effect, having ......................... 32
byelaws
delegated legislation
uncertainty, void for .................................. 23
‘as if in Act’ .............................................. 22
cause of action ............................................. 27
Act, conflict with ...................................... 22
champerty ..................................................... 38
primary intention, rule of .......................... 23
devolution .................................................... 16
common law
abolition of common law rules by Act ...... 21
differential readings
presumption as to statutory alteration of ... 38
nature of .................................................... 20
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
56
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
direction ....................................................... 23
discretion
judgment, distinguished from ................... 19
double jeopardy........................................... 48
doubtful penalisation, principle against .... 39
nature of .................................................... 39
physical restraint of the person ................. 39
drafting error
presumption against .................................. 27
ejusdem generis principle
general words followed by narrower term 52
elegant variation .......................................... 50
ellipsis (the Relevant Index entry should not be
italicised) ................................................... 29
equity, rules of
implied application of ............................... 46
estoppel
executive ................................................... 34
general ....................................................... 46
European Community law
member states' laws................................... 53
European Community Law
UK law, effect of, on................................. 53
European Convention on Human Rights
Art 13 ........................................................ 53
Art 5 (liberty and security) ........................ 54
First Protocol, Art 1 (protection of property)
.............................................................. 54
evasion of Act
avoidance, distinguished from .................. 45
indirect ...................................................... 45
presumption against .................................. 45
repetitious acts, by .................................... 45
evidence
exceptions rule .......................................... 48
fresh .......................................................... 47
hearsay ...................................................... 47
exclusionary rule, the
control of its procedure by court and ........ 35
reasons for ................................................. 35
existence ....................................................... 50
expressio unius principle
extending words and ................................. 52
nature of .................................................... 52
expressum facit cessare tacitum .................. 52
fact
proof of ..................................................... 27
free-standing term....................................... 51
functional construction
delegated legislation and ........................... 36
generalia specialibus non derogant ............. 24
generalibus specialia derogant
[incorrectly given in the Index as generalia
specialia derogant] ............................... 50
golden rule ................................................... 16
government department
Act, in charge of ....................................... 34
guidelines issued by .................................. 35
greater includes less .................................... 32
habeas corpus............................................... 39
heading
interpretation by reference to .................... 36
hendiadys ..................................................... 51
homonym ..................................................... 51
Human Rights Act 1998
‘Convention, the’, meaning of [New entry,
not in fifth edition] ................................ 54
compatibility, ministers’ statements of ..... 54
ignorantia juris neminem excusat ............... 16
illegality
fraud .......................................................... 38
in bonam partem (in good faith)
construction........................................... 38
implication
legitimacy of ............................................. 29
limitation on express words, of ................. 29
related law, affecting ................................ 30
statutory description, partially met, and.... 52
impossibility ................................................ 48
in pari materia, Acts............................... 34, 35
incompatibility, declaration of, under
Human Rights Act 1998
primary legislation, in respect of [New
entry, not in fifth edition] ...................... 54
incorporation by reference
archival drafting ........................................ 37
nature of .................................................... 37
informed interpretation
rule ............................................................ 33
intention, legislative
duplex approach to.................................... 28
fictitious, whether ..................................... 28
Interpretation Act 1978
general ...................................................... 33
interpretation by reference to .................... 37
interpretative factors
consistent result from, effect of ................ 31
interpreter of enactment
legal knowledge, need for ......................... 33
interstitial articulation
examples of ............................................... 30
meaning of ................................................ 30
judicial notice
meaning of words, of ................................ 51
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
57
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
general ...................................................... 18
omission to act ............................................. 26
open court, principle of the
nature of .................................................... 19
ordinary meaning
nature of .................................................... 50
Padfield approach ....................................... 18
Pepper v Hart, rule in
judicial application of ............................... 34
retreat from [New entry, not in fifth edition]
.............................................................. 34
per incuriam decision
nature of .................................................. See
political factors
enactment, behind ..................................... 29
pre-Act law, the [New entry, not in fifth
edition] ...................................................... 34
precedent, doctrine of
obiter dictum [New entry, not in fifth
edition] .................................................. 20
prerogative instrument
nature of .................................................... 22
private Act
construction of .......................................... 47
interpretation of ........................................ 42
prosecution of offences
judicial review [New entry, not in fifth
edition] .................................................. 19
private prosecutions .................................. 19
Shawcross exercise [New entry, not in fifth
edition] .................................................. 18
punctuation
interpretation by reference to .................... 37
purpose clause
nature of .................................................... 36
purposive construction
nature of .................................................... 42
purposive-and-literal construction ............ 43
purposive-and-strained construction ......... 43
Queen’s Printer ........................................... 22
rectifying construction
casus omissus ............................................ 41
conflicting texts ........................................ 41
examples of ............................................... 41
nature of .................................................... 41
recusal .......................................................... 27
reddendo singula singulis principle............ 52
repeal
implied ...................................................... 24
nature of .................................................... 24
repugnancy
within same Act ........................................ 50
judicial review
prosecution of offences [New entry, not in
fifth edition]........................................... 19
jurisdiction
ouster of .................................................... 19
justice
law should serve........................................ 38
land
meaning of ................................................ 45
law-churning................................................ 42
legal meaning
multilingual systems ................................. 16
legal meaning ............................................... 16
legal meaning
nature of .................................................... 28
legal policy
law should be consistent ........................... 38
legal process, rights of [New entry, not in
fifth edition]........................................... 40
nature of .............................................. 37, 38
property rights and .................................... 39
property rights, and ................................... 40
legal proceedings
academic or hypothetical point ................. 20
legality, principle of (constitutional rights)
.................................................................. 39
legislation
primary and secondary [New entry, not in
fifth edition]..................................... 22, 23
remedial [New entry, not in fifth edition] .. 31
legislative history
consolidation Acts and .............................. 34
literal construction
presumption regarding [New entry, not in
fifth edition]........................................... 40
long title
interpretative use of................................... 36
Lords, House of
precedent, and ........................................... 20
mandatory and directory requirements .... 17
mistake of law
Parliament, by ........................................... 35
natural justice
fairness ...................................................... 46
Necessity
necessitas non habet legem ...................... 49
nemo debet bis vexari ................................... 47
neologism ..................................................... 51
noscitur a sociis principle ............................ 52
notice, statutory
invalid ....................................................... 41
Ombudsman
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
58
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 19, 3 Sep 2009)
res magis valeat quam pereat....................... 32
retrospectivity
nature of .................................................... 25
presumption against .................................. 38
procedural provisions and ......................... 25
Royal Assent
refusal of ................................................... 21
rules of construction
remedial legislation [New entry, not in fifth
edition] .................................................. 31
saving
common law and ....................................... 24
Secretary of State ........................................ 18
selective comminution
meaning of ................................................ 27
separation of powers, doctrine of............... 19
severance
Order in Council, in [New entry, not in fifth
edition] .................................................. 23
singular and plural...................................... 33
standard of proof
civil ........................................................... 47
statutory duty
types of ...................................................... 16
statutory interpretation
basic rule ................................................... 31
delegated legislation, by reference to ........ 35
public good construction ........................... 25
statutory power
invalid exercise of ..................................... 45
statutory right
contracting out of ...................................... 18
strained construction
reasons justifying ...................................... 28
strict and liberal construction .................... 30
strict liability................................................ 18
sub-rules ...................................................... 36
tacit legislation ............................................ 36
proviso, nature of ...................................... 36
technical terms
interpretation of ........................................ 51
non-legal terms ......................................... 51
tense.............................................................. 50
territorial extent of Act
basic rule ................................................... 25
uniform meaning throughout extent ......... 25
time
commonsense construction rule and ......... 40
performance, of [New entry, not in fifth
edition] .................................................. 49
transitional provisions ................................ 25
transposition of European Community law
UK transposing enactment, interpretation of
.............................................................. 53
treaty
interpretation of ........................................ 35
ultra vires, doctrine of
delegated legislation, and.......................... 22
updating construction
common law, and ...................................... 55
definition of ........................................ 41, 42
law, changes in ......................................... 42
presumption favouring .............................. 41
words, change of meaning of, and ............ 42
user of legislation ........................................ 38
vigilantibus non dormientibus leges
subveniunt ................................................ 49
volenti non fit injuria ................................... 49
weightless drafting ...................................... 50
words
different words given different meanings . 49
every word to be given meaning ............... 49
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn
59