Business Law
Within the English legal system, many statutes are passed by Parliament each year. These statutes cannot be changed, but many cases come to court due to a dispute over an unclear meaning of an Act. When this happens, it is the task of the judiciary to apply statutory interpretation, to interpret words of a given Act, to give them an exact meaning and to give them legal effect. Statutory interpretation is an integral part of the court ruling process, as the role of a judge is to apply the law, not make it.
When trying to establish Parliament’s intention within an Act, there are various aids available to help. Firstly, there are three approaches to interpretation. The first of these is the literal rule, where, according to Martin (2007)1 “courts will give words their plain, ordinary or literal meaning, even if the result is not very sensible”. This rule should be used wherever possible and, generally, will produce a reasonable interpretation. However, there have been cases where this application has led to an absurd result. Whiteley v Chappell (1868)2 is an example of this, where a case was brought to court with the defendant being charged with impersonating another person who was entitled to vote. In this case, they were pretending to be someone whose name was on the voters’ list who had died. Applying the literal rule, the court found the defendant not guilty, because a dead person is not entitled to vote. Another example is London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman (1946)3, where a widow was trying to claim compensation for her husband who was killed whilst carrying out maintenance work along the railway line. The Fatal Accidents Act 18644 said there should be look out men present when people are relaying or repairing the track but this didn’t happen. Using the literal rule, the court refused Mrs Berriman’s claim, because her husband was carrying out maintenance work, rather than relaying or repairing the track.
The literal rule, however,
When trying to establish Parliament’s intention within an Act, there are various aids available to help. Firstly, there are three approaches to interpretation. The first of these is the literal rule, where, according to Martin (2007)1 “courts will give words their plain, ordinary or literal meaning, even if the result is not very sensible”. This rule should be used wherever possible and, generally, will produce a reasonable interpretation. However, there have been cases where this application has led to an absurd result. Whiteley v Chappell (1868)2 is an example of this, where a case was brought to court with the defendant being charged with impersonating another person who was entitled to vote. In this case, they were pretending to be someone whose name was on the voters’ list who had died. Applying the literal rule, the court found the defendant not guilty, because a dead person is not entitled to vote. Another example is London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman (1946)3, where a widow was trying to claim compensation for her husband who was killed whilst carrying out maintenance work along the railway line. The Fatal Accidents Act 18644 said there should be look out men present when people are relaying or repairing the track but this didn’t happen. Using the literal rule, the court refused Mrs Berriman’s claim, because her husband was carrying out maintenance work, rather than relaying or repairing the track.
The literal rule, however,
Bibliography: Keenan, D., & Riches, S., (2005) Business Law. 7th edition. Pearson. Martin, J., (2007) The English Legal System. 5th edition, Hodder Arnold. 150 CLS : BUSINESS LAW SID : 1647901 DATE : 12th NOVEMBER 2007 TUTOR : GLENN LEE ASQUITH COURSEWORK 1 “THE JUDICIARY HAVE NO ROLE TO PLAY IN THE INTERPRETATION OF LAW CREATED BY PARLIAMENT. THE WORDS AND PHRASES USED WITHIN A STATUTE MUST BE FOLLOWED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE VIEWS HELD BY ANY PARTICULAR JUDGE, EVEN WHERE THIS MAY LEAD TO PERCEIVED INJUSTICE OR ABSURDITY” Explain what is meant by the phrase “statutory interpretation”, highlighting relevant case law (including facts and decisions) and assess the validity of the above statement.