Headings An aid To Interpretation

Headings in a Statute and Regulation

"The headings in a statute or in Regulations can be taken into consideration in determining the meaning of a provision where that provision is ambiguous, and may sometimes be of service in determining the scope of a provision.[1] 'But where the enacting words are clear and unambiguous, the title, or headings, must give way, and full effect must be given to the enactment[2].'

The Court is entitled to have regard to headings in statutory provisions. Section 19(1)(b) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1915 (SA) provides:

The following form part of an Act, subject to any express provision to the contrary:

(a) preambles, schedules, dictionaries and appendices (including their headings);
(b) chapter headings, part headings, division headings and subdivision headings;
(c) examples, qualifications, exceptions, tables, diagrams, maps and other illustrations (including their headings), except where they form part of a note that does not form part of the Act;
(d) punctuation.

In Silk Bros Pty Ltd v State Electricity Commission of Victoria, LATHAM CJ observed:[3]

The headings in a statute or in Regulations can be taken into consideration in determining the meaning of a provision where that provision is ambiguous, and may sometimes be of service in determining the scope of a provision.

Headings of parts and subdivision

The Acts Interpretation Act by sec. 13 declares "the Headings of the Parts Divisions and Subdivisions into which any Act is divided shall be deemed to be part of the Act." The controlling effect of a heading of this nature is shown by Inglis v. Robertson[4].

Heading of Sections and provisions

Similarly, heading to s 222AKA itself, to which reference may be made as an aid to interpretation.[5]The setion headings are not part of an Act.[6]’ Assistance may also be obtained by looking at the headings of parts, divisions and subdivisions of an Act as they are deemed to be part of the Act. (s 13, Acts Interpretation Act 1901). However, the heading to a section of an Act does not form part of the Act and cannot be used to assist in its interpretation.[7] ‘The heading to the section (formerly the side-note) gives an indication as to its general purpose. It suggests that the section is concerned with "Injury to witness". Although the heading is not part of the Act..[8]

---

[1] see In re Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd. (1893) 19 VLR 333, at p 375 as stated by LATHAM CJ in Silk Bros Pty. Ltd. v. State Electricity Commission (Vict.) [1943] HCA 2; (1943) 67 CLR 1,see also Tran v The Commonwealth [2009] FCA 474 (15 May 2009)

[2] Bennett v. Minister for Public Works (N.S.W.) [1908] HCA 50; (1908) 7 CLR 372, at p 383, per ISAACS J

[3] Silk Bros Pty Ltd v State Electricity Commission of Victoria [1943] HCA 2; (1943) 67 CLR 1 at 16 per LATHAM CJ[the entire paragraph is reproduced here fro reference and the context in which it was stated:” The plaintiff endeavours to meet the difficulty created by the apparent repeal of the Fair Rents Regulations in two ways. In the first place, it is said that the regulation appears only as part of the Landlord and Tenant Regulations, and reference is made to the heading of the Regulations, which shows that they are intended to constitute an amendment of the Landlord and Tenant Regulations. It is then argued that, if the Landlord and Tenant Regulations are completely invalid, Statutory Rules 1943 No. 12, which amends those Regulations in certain particulars, is also invalid. In my opinion there are two answers to this contention. In the first place, I have already expressed my opinion that the Landlord and Tenant Regulations are not completely invalid, and there is no reason why the amendments made by Statutory Rules 1943 No. 12 in relation to regs. 3, 4, 5, 9 and 13, should not be completely effective, even if the amendment made by the only other regulation in the statutory rule (namely, reg. 7, amending reg. 15 of the Landlord and Tenant Regulations) should fail, together with reg. 15. In the next place, there is no reason why the operation of reg. 1 repealing the Fair Rents Regulations should be limited by the heading which describes the statutory rule as consisting of amendments of the Landlord and Tenant Regulations. The headings in a statute or in Regulations can be taken into consideration in determining the meaning of a provision where that provision is ambiguous, and may sometimes be of service in determining the scope of a provision (see In re Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd(1893) 19 V.L.R. 333, at p. 375.). "But where the enacting words are clear and unambiguous, the title, or headings, must give way, and full effect must be given to the enactment" (Bennett v. Minister for Public Works (N.S.W.) [1908] HCA 50; (1908) 7 C.L.R. 372, at p. 383., per ISAAC J

[4]Inglis v. Robertson( 1898) A.C. 616.)

[5] Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 15AB. See Pearce and Geddes, op cit at [4.49].

[6]WORSLEY TIMBER 2000 PTY LTD (in liq) -v- COMMISSIONER OF STATE REVENUE [2007] WASC 155 (24 July 2007

[7] XTWK and Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2008] AATA 703 (8 August 2008) Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia

[8] Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 13(3).

Back to Preamble to Consolidation Acts

Next Interpretaing a provsion