Presumption that all Laws bear a Meaning

The presumption is a common sense observation and presumption.

The courts presume that no words of a statute are enacted without a reason. The presumption is illustrated in the case of Cork Co Council v Whillock, which turned on the interpretation of the Malicious Injuries Act, 1981 . O'Flaherty J applied a literal interpretation to the section according to the ordinary and natural meaning of its words. He also stated that "a construction which would leave without effect any part of the language of the statute will normally be rejected." Egan J endorsed the same principle, stating:

"There is abundant authority for the presumption that words are not used in a statute without a meaning and are not tautologous or superfluous, and so effect must be given, if possible, to all the words used, for the legislature must be deemed not to waste its words or say anything in vain."
The rule was reiterated in the case of Comptroller and Auditor General v Ireland and Attorney General, which concerned the interpretation of sections of the Comptroller and Auditor General (Amendment) Act 1993 Laffoy J noted the decision in Cork County Council v Whillock and rejected the interpretation of the provision at issue put forward by the plaintiff, since it would result in some words of the section, which were clear and unambiguous, becoming meaningless. Laffoy J noted that this could not have been the intention of the legislature.

Statutory Drafting and Interpretation, Consultation Paper on: Plain Language and the Law (LRC CP14-1999) [1999] IELRC 1 (1st July, 1999)