Chapter-10 part-7

The interpretation of the above would be simple,The second use of the rule is in a wider sense, to avoid a result that is against the principles of public policy. In Rex v. Sigsworth [1] the court decided that a son who had murdered his mother could not inherit her estate under the Administration of Estates Act (1925), even though there was only one literal interpretation of the word "issue" used..It can thus be employed if the conclusion leads to something whichis against the public policy or is opposed to the public policy and no farther..

"Golden Rule" approach alongwith "plain meaning" may be avoided only if necessary to avoid absurdity[2]. (Now the Golden Rule Approach is sometimes called the "liberal" approach as well. The case most often cited as authority is Grey v. Pearson [3](l857) where Lord Wensleydale stated that:

“... in construing statutes, and all…., the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that leads to some absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the statute, in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may get modified, so as to avoid that absurdity ."[Extracted by the author]

The literal and the golden rule approaches are in close vicinity to one another.Must judges say that it is exactly like the literal approach, except when there is clearly a mistake in drafting, or there is an inconsistency with the plain meaning of the rest of the Act, then you can avoid it. The use of the phrase "grammatical and ordinary sense of the words" indicates that the Golden Rule is tied to the Literal Rule. The idea that words have plain meanings is still affirmed, but here, if you have a plain meaning that is absurd in the context of the rest of the Act, you may modify it. That is you may decide not to give the word a "plain meaning"; but rather give it a "secondary" meaning. The Plain meaning rule, also known as the literal rule, is a type of statutory construction which dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute. It underlies Textualism.

[1] Rex v. Sigsworth (1935; Ch 89)

[2]See: Grey v. Pearson (l857) 6 H.L.C. 6l, at l06, l0 E.R. l2l6, at l234 (H.L.)

[3] ibid[grey]