Ambiguity: Per Maxewell

In 1906 Justice OfConnor in the High Court, immediately after his reference to the broader sense of the word "ambiguity", quoted with approval the following passage from the third edition of

Maxwell on the Interpretation of Statutes:

"General words admit of indefinite extension or restriction, according to the subject to which they relate, and the scope and object in contemplation. They may convey faithfully enough all that was intended, and yet comprise also much that was not; or be so restricted in meaning as not to reach all the cases which fall within the real intention. Even, therefore, where there is no indistinctness or conflict of thought, or carelessness of expression in a statute, there is enough in the vagueness or elasticity inherent in language to account for the difficulty so frequently found in ascertaining the meaning of an enactment, with a degree of accuracy necessary for determining whether a particular case falls within it.[ Bowtell v Goldsborough Mort & Co Limited]

The basic proposition was well put by Lord Reid in the following citation that is fairly impressive and general words may have some other meaning is fairly established[Blogger]:

"There are many cases where general words in a statute are given a limited meaning. That is, not only when there is something in the statute itself which requires it, but also where to give general words their apparent meaning would lead to conflict with some fundamental principles. Where there is ample scope for the words to operate without any such conflict it may very well be that the draftsman did not have in mind and Parliament did not realise that the words were so wide that in some few cases they could operate to subvert a fundamental principle. In general, of course, the intention of Parliament can only be inferred from the words of the statute, but it appears to me to be well established in certain cases that, without some specific indication of an intention to do so, the mere generality of words used will not be regarded as sufficient to show an intention to depart from fundamental principle." [Smith v East Elloe Rural District Council [I9561 AC 736 at 764-765]

However, what are fundamental principles while interpreting an Act, it is intent of legislature or the object of the statute[blogger]The following shall also say the same in regard to the fundamental principles .i.e the fundamental rights shall not be infringed. Thus we have two meanings assigned to the word fundamental. However, the following contains a popular presumption to the statutes that the Act cannot override the constitution.;blogger]

"One can point to other 'rules of construction' which require clear and unambiguous words before a statutory provision will be construed as displaying a legislative intent to achieve a particular result. Examples of such 'rules' are those relating to the construction of a statute which would abolish or modify fundamental common law principles or rights, which would operate retrospectively, which would deprive a superior court of power to prevent an unauthorized assumption of jurisdiction or which would take away property without compensation. The rationale of all such rules lies in an assumption that the legislature would, if it intended to achieve the particular effect, have made its intention in that regard unambiguously clear. Thus, the rationale of the presumption against the modification or abolition of fundamental rights or principles is to be found in the assumption that it is 'in the least degree improbable that the legislature would overthrow fundamental principles, infringe rights, or depart from the general system of law, without expressing its intention with irresistible clearness; and to give any such effect to general words, simply because they have that meaning in their widest, or usual, or natural sense, would be to give them a meaning in which they were not really used '[Bropho. Citation not given here]