Powerpoint with detailed summary for each module in first year Modern English Legal System (MELS). Separated by design for ease of reference. Powerpoint based on detailed lecture notes and readings - condensed into easy-to-read Powerpoint format to help with making flash cards, memorising, etc.
...
,‘rules’ of interpretation
➔ the literal rule
◆ use plain meaning because they’re what the draftsman chose to employ
➔ the golden rule
◆ give words ordinary meaning in light of whole statute unless it produces inconsistencies
➔ the purposive rule
◆ find meaning through examining the general purpose of the section or its social context
➔ the mischief rule
◆ look at previous common law to find what draftsman sought to remedy
➔ are they really rules? label submits to the ‘tyranny of language’ and loses parliament’s intention
◆ Lord Templeman’s view in Re M (A Minor) (Care Order: Threshold Conditions) [1994]
➔ can be used singularly as well as in combination
◆ Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Ltd v Ballard (Kent) Ltd [1999]
◆ e.g. golden and mischief rule in Royal College of Nursing v DHSS [1981] by Lord Diplock
,the literal rule
➔ words chosen by parliament show their intention
➔ ensures judge is interpreting statute and not making the law
◆ Lord Diplock in Duport Steel v Sirs [1980]
➔ could be fundamentalist as consequences of interpretation aren’t considered
➔ R v Harris (1836); interpretation of ‘stab, cut or wound’
◆ Words point towards use of a weapon so no offence in biting as teeth aren’t weapons
➔ Fisher v Bell [1961]; interpretation of ‘sell or hire or offer for sale or hire’
◆ Invitation to treat isn’t offer for sale so wasn’t guilty as didn’t prohibit exposing for sale
, the golden / purposive rule
➔ golden rule used when literal rule creates inconsistencies or absurdities
◆ not the same as literalism going against a judge’s sense of justice
◆ needs to be confusion in the internal context of the Act
➔ means words are used in context of statute as a whole
◆ done when there is a clear and gross anomaly, parliament wouldn’t have envisaged or accepted the presence of
this anomaly, the anomaly could be obviated without detriment to the legislative intent, and the language of the
statute allows for this modification
(Stock v Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd [1978])
➔ R v Allen (1872); interpretation of ‘marry’ as ‘shall marry’/‘going through ceremony’
◆ literal interpretation wouldn’t include a void marriage to someone you’re closely related to
◆ logical absurdity because bigamous marriage needs a second legal marriage - not possible
➔ Re Sigsworth [1935]; interpretation of statute dealing with intestacy
◆ will let everything to son who was dead so was intestate so went to son who was dead, etc.
◆ found that statute wasn’t intended to let murderers profit despite not mentioning this
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller ambershah. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $11.24. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
