Statutory interpretation
Law Firm

In order for consistency in interpreting the meaning of legislation, the courts use specific rules in order to resolve ambiguity. Those rules are known colectively as rules of statutory interpretation.

Firstly a court will give the everyday meaning to the words, notwithstanding that it may lead to an absurdity. The golden rule may be used where the literal rule leads to an obvious absurdity, and lastly the mischief rule may be applied to ascertain the purpose for which the legislation was enacted, by going beyond the actual words used in the legislation. Courts are in a most difficult position in this regard, as they do not pass the legislation which they are required to interpret, and the court will strive for a sensible meaning to the statute where possible.

A court may refer to the content of the legislation in interpreting legalisation, including the title of the legislation, its preamble and its schedules. Also, the Minister's speech in the passage of the Bill (recorded in Hansard) may be referred to as with dictionaries and textbooks.

The following presumptions apply when interpreting statute:

1. They are presumed not to bind the Crown
2. They do not operate retrospectively in respect to substantive law (as opposed to procedural law)
3. They not interfere with legal rights already vested
4. They do not oust the jurisdiction of the courts
5. They do not detract from constitutional law or international law

These are presumptions that may be rebutted by clear words.

Statutes imposing taxation or penal in nature are subject to strict construction, and ambiguity is resolved in favour of the subject.