Comparison of Literal and Purposive Approaches to Statutory Interpretation in the English Legal System

Comparison of Literal and Purposive Approaches to Statutory Interpretation in the English Legal System

Introduction

Statutory interpretation is basically the process in which the provisions of Parliament Act are applied and interpreted by judges when law cases come before them. It is significant to study the statutory interpretation as in the formal legal system; several appeals are founded on this. The court must perform this when any case entails a statute, principally as some statutes have a straightforward and plain meaning. Also, there is normally vagueness and ambiguity within the statute words and it is left to the authority of Judge for the resolution of matter. Lord Denning was the first to address this issue and quoted that “where parliament leaves a gap in legislation it is the responsibility of the judge to make it feasible.” For effective interpretation of statute, there are several different methods and techniques that are used by judges. Judges may approach to any statute for interpreting it by two different ways and this includes the literal and the purposive approach. In this writing paper, there will be a contrast and comparison of the literal and purposive approaches to statutory interpretation in the English Legal System; and by using case laws, the advantages and disadvantages of both the approaches will be highlighted.

Discussion

The undertaking of interpretation may change in complexity. Numerous factors have been identified by F.A.R. Bennion that may be the basis of ambiguity and doubt (Statute Law, 1990).

Certain words or terms that are regarded as necessarily implied may be refrained to use by the draftsman. The problem that arises here is that the main points of case are unable to realise by the users.

Broad terminologies such as (a phrase or word with wide meanings) may be used by the draftsman and then it is left to the judgements of user that what circumstances fall under this.

Uncertain or vague words of terms may be used.

There may be unanticipated developments.

Wordings may be insufficient by several ways. There may also be a typo-error, a drafting error, a printing error, or any other.

It is considerable that the usual methodologies of statutory interpretation are not regulated in their own ways by the Parliament, but have been established by the judges. The Interpretation Act of 1978, which was formed in order to fulfil such sort of function, has the moderately unmotivated ambition to provide certain standardised definitions of some regular and familiar provisions, and by this means enables statutes for drafting more in brief as compared to what else would be the case.

Some contemporary statutes generally comprise of 'definition sections' in which the phrases and words meanings are originated in the statute and are elucidated either partially (X 'includes' ABC) or comprehensively (X 'means' ABC).

Generally, for putting consideration on the difficulties in interpreting language and on the complexities in interpreting legislation particularly, it is essential to take into consideration some mechanisms and methodologies that ...