Advantages of Literal Rule..Contd..

1. R. v. Harris 1836, Harris bit someone's nose off; it was unlawful to "stab, cut or wound" (this is also an example of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and indeed the two approaches are complimentary).

2. This implied that some instrument must be used - this may be criticised as symptomatic of the irrelevance and absurdity of the law, but it is not wholly indefensible, since for the law to develop as a science, it is essential for it to follow logical rules.

3. "We no longer construe Acts according to their literal meaning. We construe them according to their object and intent." - Lord Denning

4. The court's aim is to find the intention of Parliament as expressed in the words it used - Viscount Dilhorne in Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd. 1978.

5. Clear words must be applied - even if the result is absurd per Lord Edmund-Davies in Stock (above), i.e. the judges' only role is in determining what unclear words mean.

6. The literal rule is liable to lead to hardship - but in certain circumstances the courts have decided that it should always be followed: in Leadale v. Lewis 1982, the House of Lords said that tax statutes with clear meanings should have that meaning favoured; even if the result is 'wrong', causes hardship or leaves loopholes that might be exploited.

7. "If the precise words used are plain and unambiguous, in our judgment we are bound to construe them in their ordinary sense, even though it does lead to an absurdity or manifest injustice"- Jervis CJ in Abley v. Dale 1851.

8. "We can only take the intention of Parliament from the words which they have used in the Act" - Lord Reid in I. R. C. v. Hinchy 1960 (note Pepper v. Hart 1992)

9. "When the language of a statute is plain it is not open to the court to remedy a defect of drafting" Viscount Dilhorne - Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd.

10. "If the words of an Act are clear, you must follow them, even though they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has committed an absurdity. [However] If the words of an Act admit two interpretations, and if one interpretation leads to an absurdity, and the other does not, the Court will conclude the legislature did not intend the absurdity and adopt the other interpretation" R. v. City of London Court Judge [1892] 1 QB 273 Lord Esher

11. "It is a cardinal principle in all statutes that you may not attach to a statutory provision a meaning that the words of that provision cannot reasonably bear. If they are capable of more than one meaning, then you can choose between those meanings, but beyond that you must not go." Lord Reid, Jones v. DPP 1962

12. "Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral." per Lord Diplock in Dupont Steels Ltd. v. Sirs 1980. He also said that even if the omission from the plain and unambiguous statute was inadvertent - and that if Parliament had foreseen the casus omissus, it would have certainly adopted a course of action other than the literal interpretation of the statute - then the plain (and contrary to Parliament's intention) interpretation should be followed. "If this be the case it is for Parliament, not for the judiciary, to decide whether any changes should be made to the law as stated in the Act." Hence the mischief rule can only be used when there is some ambiguity.

13. However, note the clear and unambiguous provisions of the Factories Act, which required the fencing of machines when "in motion". It was held that in Richard Thomas and Baldwins Co. Ltd v. Cummings 1955 that this meant "mechanical propulsion" and excluded being moved by hand. This is a clear breach of Lord Diplock's statement above.

Go Back to Approaches to Construction