FOL - Topic 9 Flashcards
(10 cards)
1
Q
Latin maxims in statutory interpretation
A
- Ejusdem generis: ‘of the same kind’
- Noscitur a sociis: ‘a word is known by its associates’
- Reddendo singula: ‘by rendering each his own’
- Expressio unius est exclusio alterius: ‘the express mention of one thing is to the exclusion of others’
2
Q
Ejusdem generis
A
- ‘of the same kind’
- used when general words are used with specific words
- meaning limited to those of the same genus
3
Q
Noscitur a sociis
A
- ‘a word is known by its associates’
- used when EG isn’t applicable
- read and define in context of the Act
- can restrict/expand meaning
4
Q
Reddendo singula
A
- ‘by rendering each his own’
- where a text exhibits the pattern ‘A and B are Y and Z’, A matches with Y and B matches with Z
5
Q
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
A
- ‘the express mention of one thing is to the exclusion of others’
- if 2 things are usually mentioned together, but only 1 is mentioned, concluded that Parliament intended to exclude the other
- reluctant to apply if it results in a narrow reading that may be unintended
6
Q
Common law presumptions and guidelines
A
- consistent use of words
- words interpreted according to ordinary meaning
- words interpreted with current meaning (legislation deemed to always be speaking)
- all words should have a meaning (no surplusage)
- Parliament doesn’t intend to interfere with fundamental rights
- parliament doesn’t intend to violate international law
- legislation not intended to be retrospective
- penal provisions construed in def’s favour
7
Q
VCHRR s 32(1)
A
- interpretation. should be compatible with human rights
8
Q
VCHRR s 36
A
- Declaration of Inconsistent Interpretation can be made
9
Q
Conditions to use external materials
A
- s 15AB ILA
- to confirm ordinary meaning of words: s 15AB(1)(a)
- determine meaning of words where it’s ambiguous/obscure: s 15AB(1)(b)(i)
- where the ordinary meaning creates an absurd/unreasonable result: s 15AB(1)(b)(ii)
10
Q
Principle of legality
A
- unless Parliament is unmistakably clear in its intention to abrogate/suspend a fundamental freedom, courts won’t construe a statute as having that operation
