The words of any statutory provision must be first read in the context provided by the statute as a whole(Attorney-General v. Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover (1957) AC 436, at pp 461, 473; Maunsell v. Olins (1975) AC 373, at p 386; Black-Clawson Ltd. v. Papierwerke A.G. [1975] UKHL 2; (1975) AC 591, at p 613) but "if, when so read, the meaning of the section is literally clear and unambiguous, nothing remains but to give effect to the unqualified words": Metropolitan Gas Co. v. Federated Gas Employees' Industrial Union [1925] HCA 5; (1925) 35 C.L.R 449, at p 455; Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty. Ltd. v. Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1981] HCA 26; (1981) 147 CLR 297, at pp 304-305. [cited from at para4K. & S. LAKE CITY FREIGHTERS PTY. LTD. v. GORDON & GOTCH LTD. [1985] HCA 48; (1985) 157 CLR 309]
"It is well-settled principle that while interpreting a statute, the interpretative function of the court is to discover the true legislative intent. A statute is best interpreted when we know why it was enacted. It must be read, first as a whole, and then section by section, clause by clause, phrase by phrase and word by word and therefore, taking into consideration the contextual connotation and the scheme of the Act, its provisions in their entirety,..["Consortium Self Financing v. State of TN - WP.20212 of 2007 [2007] INTNHC 2130 (2 July 2007)'The key to the opening of every law is the reason and spirit of the law, it is the animus imponentis, the intention of the law maker expressed in the law itself, taken as a whole."STATE OF PUNJAB V. BALBIR SINGH [1994] INSC 152; AIR 1994 SC 1872; 1994 (3) SCC 299; 1994 (2) JT 108; 1994 (1) SCALE 793 (1 March 1994)
The following are the citations taken from a Canadian Court decision. As these rule appear at one place ,the same are given without any editing.[Blogger]
"The authorities on the interpretation of statutes generally agree that a statute is to be read as a whole and that every clause is to be construed with reference to the other clauses of the act and its context, to the greatest extent possible. (Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutesand Driedger on Construction of Statutes.)
In discussing the ejusdem generis rule, Driedger points out that the rule is not a rule of law but rather a principle of language which can serve as a starting point to interpretation. However, the question of whether the rule should be applied only arises after first examining whether the substantive context or the object of the act is sufficient to determine the scope of the general words. Only if they are not should the verbal context be looked at, and consideration given to whether the specific words should be read as controlling the scope of the general words. But where there is a conflict between the verbal context and the substantive context, the substantive prevails.
Under the ejusdem generis rule, general words may be restricted to the same genus as the specific words preceding them. In order to apply the rule it is necessary to ascertain the genus of the specific words which must be found to possess some common and dominant feature. If no class can be found, then the rule cannot apply and, according to Driedger, a broad construction is to be favoured.
The noscitur a sociis rule sets out that the meaning of a doubtful word may be ascertained by reference to the meaning of the words associated with it. In this way, also, the meaning of the more general is restricted to a sense analogous to the less general, except where it would be contrary to the intention of the statute as a whole to do so.
And, finally, there is a general presumption that the same expression in a statute is presumed to be used in the same sense throughout an act. It follows, therefore, that where the wording is changed, a change in meaning is also presumed. "
Cited from
No comments:
Post a Comment