Preamble: Aid to Interpretation
“Nowadays, when it is a rare thing to find a preamble in any public general Statute, the field of inquiry is even narrower than it was in former times. In the absence of a preamble there can, I think, be only two cases in which it is permissible to depart from the ordinary and natural sense of the words of an enactment. It must be shown either that the words taken in their natural sense lead to some absurdity or that there is some other clause in the body of the Act inconsistent with, or repugnant to, the enactment in question construed in the ordinary sense of the language in which it is expressed.[1]"
As the preamble to the Law of Property Act,1952 shows that it was an Act "to consolidate " the enactments relating to conveyancing and the law of property in England and Wales.In these circumstances the presumption is that such an Act is not intended to alter the law, but this prima facie view must yield to plain words to the contrary.[2] LORD GUEST also observed in this case that any fundamental change in law would be altering the Law as was enunciated in earlier cases.[3] There is a presumption that consolidation acts are not intended to alter the law[4].In Oy, R (on the application of) v. Bristol Magistrates Court & Ors [5] reference was made to the preamble of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 Act states that its purpose is, among other things, "to make further provision for securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work" and it was observed that: ”The same purpose is reiterated in the heading to Part I of the Act and in s.1(1). Sections 3 to 5 deal with the duties of employers and those responsible for the work-place. S.6, as amended by the Consumer Protection Act 1987, provides:”" It shall be the duty of any person who designs, manufactures, imports or supplies any article for use at work to ensure, so far as is reasonably practical, that the article is so designed and constructed that it will be safe and without risks to health at all times when it is being ... used ...by a person at work; ....
" In the same case it was stated that:” Regarding safety standards, the preamble notes that harmonization must be confined to the requirements necessary to satisfy 'essential health and safety requirements' relating to machinery.[6]”
“Preamble signifies the object and the purpose of the Act/statute and it may or may not be treated as an integral part of the statute. In case of ambiguity the reference can be made to it but whether it will stand the test of legality is yet to be tested. There is no uniformity of approach as to the basic question if the preamble can be treated as announcer of policy.[7]”
To this effect it has been stated :
“without a degree of violence to the express terms of the Act, for which neither its context nor its policy (as expressed in the preamble) affords any justification, to restrict the operation of the 2nd section to "the two descriptions of easement therein specified, viz., the right to a way or watercourse.[8]"
[1]Per Lord Macnaghten and quoted in Lukey v Edmunds [1916] HCA 25; (1916) 21 CLR 336 (11 April 1916 per ISAACs J
[2] See:Gray v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [1960] A.C.1.per VISCOUNT SIMONDs page 13 as cited in Beswick v Beswick [1967] UKHL 2 (29 June 1967)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1967/2.html
Cite as: [1967] 3 WLR 932, [1968] AC 58, [1967] 2 All ER 1197, [1967] UKHL 2
[3]See: Tweddle v. Atkinson (1861) 1 B. & S. 393 ; 121 E.R. 762, affirmed in Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co. v. Selfridge & Co. Ltd. [1915] A.C. 847 and confirmed in Scruttons Ltd. v. Midland Silicones Ltd. [1962] A.C. 446
[4] Beswick v Beswick [1967] UKHL 2 (29 June 1967) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1967/2.html
Cite as: [1967] 3 WLR 932, [1968] AC 58, [1967] 2 All ER 1197, [1967] UKHL 2 per LORD UPJOHN[In practice both Houses of Parliament send consolidation bills to the Joint Committee of both Houses on Consolidation Bills who consider and report upon them to both Houses. The Joint Committee call the draftsmen of the Bill before them to give evidence and sometimes they have to resolve doubts whether a clause in the Bill is pure consolidation or not.]
[5] Oy, R (on the application of) v. Bristol Magistrates Court & Ors [2003] UKHL 55 (23 October 2003)
[6] Bristol Magistrates [supra]
[7] Author
[8] Dalton v Henry Angus & Co [1881] UKHL 1 (14 June 1881)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1881/1.html
Cite as: 6 App Cas 740, (1881-72) LR 6 App Cas 740, [1881] UKHL 1 [per THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Selborne)
No comments:
Post a Comment