STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Statutory Interpretation: Denning LJ in Seaford Court Estates - v - Asher [1949] 2 KB 481

Statutory Interpretation: Denning LJ in Seaford Court Estates - v - Asher [1949] 2 KB 481

Identification of the 'rules' of statutory interpretation used by judges

Statutory interpretation is essentially a personal matter. No rules can bind the process since any such rule must themselves be subjects of interpretation. (www.oxfordjournal.com)

Statutory interpretation is used by judges to make sense of the law in relation to their judgments. Statutory interpretation uses rules to help interpret what Parliament has enacted.

However it can be said the interpretation of statute has become a hugely personal affair with judges attempting to have their final say and using whatever means to justify their decisions in a particular case. One judge may use a particular rule of interpretation and another judge may use another rule, even for the same case. (www.sage.com)

The use of numerous rules of statutory interpretation can give rise to different results. Royal College of Nursing v DHSS regarding the status of medical practitioners to perform abortions was decided on different rules of interpretation of the Abortion Act 1967. Lord Woolf at the court of first instance interpreted the phrase 'medical practitioner' broadly to include nurses. Lord Denning at the Court of Appeal chose to interpret the phrase literally to mean doctors only. Lord Diplock at the House of Lords overruling the Court of Appeal interpreted the phrase to mean nurses as he felt that that was the purpose Parliament had in mind. (www.jstor.com)

Identification of the internal and external aids to statutory interpretation used by judges & Use of relevant examples

There is a large dependency on the personality of the judge whether he or she wants to take a formal approach to interpretation statute taking into account the internal context of the statute or to take a more flexible approach and look at the statute in its external context.

Admittedly the fault may lie in the way statutes are drafted. The drafting of statute in the Common Law tradition takes the exhaustive approach to drafting laws and statutes are worded to achieve certainty. However there are a number of factors that can cause uncertainty:- (Popkin 1999 246)

There is a limit to how much can be written down i.e not every single situation can be covered.

There is a lack of foreseeability and certain things may have not been anticipated and were left out.

There is ambiguity in words or phrases used.

Inherently this style of drafting encourages the development of case law where judges define and interprets words contained in the statute. We see examples of both in case law. In Duport Steel v Sirs, Lord Diplock was of the opinion that it is the work of judges to give plain and unambiguous meaning to words contained in the statute and not to worry about the consequences of doing so known as the literal rule. (Huber 1967)This followed the declaratory theory of law and provided a safe path for judges and upheld the doctrine of the separation ...