Statutory Interpretation
Rules of Language
Judges have developed three common sense rules when dealing with phrases in Acts:
1. Ejusdem Generis – Words of the same kind
2. Expressio Unius – Express wording
3. Noscitur a Sociis - A word is known by the company it keeps
Ejusdem Generis
What to look for: The judge looks for a list of specific words followed by a general word. The list must have two or more words in it.
Applying the rule: General words are limited to kind of items in the list. The judge looks for the theme in the list and can only apply the Act to this theme.
Example: "cats, dogs and other such animals". Under this rule the other animals must be of the same kind as "cats, dogs", arguably domestic animals / pets.
Case Example: Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse (1899) The D was charged with running an illegal betting stall at a racecourse. The Act said "house, office, room or other place for betting"
Held: As the outdoor tent called "Tattersall's Ring" did not fall within meaning of words in the Act as it was outdoors, and the specific words in the Act were limited to indoor places. Hence defendant not guilty of offence.
Alan v Emerson: Concerning whether a ‘funfair’ was a place of amusement. There must be at least two specific words in a list before the general word or phrase for this rule to operate.
Held: The phrase ‘theatre or other place of public entertainment’ in the act includes a funfair even though it was not of the same kind as theatres.
Advantages of Ejusdem Generis
There is no need for draftsman to write an exhaustive list of everything that is included. So the Act can cover circumstances not thought of by the draftsman but which they would have included if they had thought about it, for example in the case of Alan v Emerson.
Allows the Act to adapt to changes in society such social or technological change.
Disadvantages of Ejusdem Generis
1. The rule is unpredictable as what judges will consider is of same category as the specific words may differ. For example in the case ex parte Kihara four homeless asylum seekers claimed they were in priority need for housing due to their extreme financial hardship caused by the withdrawal of their benefits. The Housing Act 1985 gave priority to those who were ‘vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason.’ The Court of Appeal felt the phrase included the asylum seekers despite the words referring to mental and physical needs.
2. The rule could mean judges conflict with the theory of separation of powers. For example in the case of Powell v Kempton allowing the defendant to escape prosecution for running an illegal betting stall simply as the act only allowed those outside to be prosecuted may not have been parliaments true intention.
Express wording
What to look for: Where there is no general words with a list in the Act the judge must interpret the Act to only include things in the list.
Example: If Act specifically mentioned "Persian cats and
Siamese cats" (and no general words) then under this rule the Act would not apply to other breeds of cat.
Case example: Tempest v Kilner (1846): The case was about whether "goods, wares and Merchandise" listed in the Statute of Frauds 1677 applied to sale of stocks and shares.
Held: Stocks and shares were not in the list and there were no general words, hence the sale of stocks and shares do not have to comply with requirements of the Act: i.e. the sale need be evidenced in writing.
Inhabitant of Sedgley, R v (1831): A statute raised taxes on 'lands, houses and coalmines'.
Held: That taxes did not apply to limestone mines as these were not specifically mentioned nor did the as these were not specifically mentioned nor did the statute suggest that it would apply to other types of mines.
Advantages of express wording
1. A finite list is provided which makes outcomes of cases more predictable. So lawyers can advise clients whether to pursue a case or not.
2. Respects the sovereignty of Parliament – judges apply the law as stated by the elected Parliament
Disadvantages of express wording
1. Rigidity – There is no scope for development of the Act to suit a new situation, for example in the case of Sedgley at the time of the Act perhaps limestone mines were not being worked but parliament may have wanted these taxed if they had known about them.
2. The Draftsman of the Act may not have foreseen the situation now being interpreted strictly with this rule but may have intended to cover it. So in Tempest v Kilner the trading of stocks and share was a development in managing risks to benefit the investor but clearly when the Act was made such trading was not invented. On a strict in interpretation of the Act society would miss out on the economic benefits that the tax from such trading would bring but using express wording such benefits are missed out on.
A word is known by the company it keeps
What the judge looks for: NOT USUALLY A LIST. The judge looks at words in the context of the Act as a whole, and interpret accordingly.
The rule looks at words in same section or in other sections in the Act.
Example: If an Act states "hamster cages, straw and food", the meaning of "food" is found by looking at the other words in the sentence — hence meaning hamster food and not dog food.
Case examples: Inland Revenue Commissioners v Frere (1965): An stated "other annual interest" and in the same section of the Act led the court to declare that "interest" only meant annual interest.
Bromley LBC v GLC (1982): The case concerned the operation of a cheap fare scheme which resulted in the Greater London Council running the bus service at a loss.
Held: That "economic" in the Act meant run on business lines by looking at another section in the Act, which detailed a duty to run at least at break even (no loss and no profit). Therefor the cheap fares policy was illegal and had to be stopped.
Advantages of Noscitur a Sociis
1. There is no need for draftsman to write an exhaustive list of everything that is included. So the Act can cover circumstances not thought of by the draftsman but which they would have included if they had thought about it. So in Frere the judge could simply look at another part of the act to make sense of the phrase that needed interpreting in the case, "other annual interest".
2. The rule treats the whole act as a tool for interpretation, rather than just the specific phrase being considered. So the judge can use the rest of the act to help interpret the phrase causing concern, such as definition and interpretation sections. For example in Bromley v GLC the word “economic” in the act was used in conjunction with a another part of the act stating bus routes should be run on economic lines to interpret that Bromley could not a cheap fair scheme at a loss.
Disadvantages of Noscitur a Sociis
1. Leaves room for judicial development of the law, which can be seen as judicial law making. So in the case of Frere parliament may not have wished another part of the Ac to be referred to in order to decide that tax was not payable on Frere’s earnings. This interpretation meant that not only did society miss out on the benefits these payments could bring to society in general but may not have been the approach parliament intended.
2. The rule can risk clashing with the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty. In the case of Bromley GLV v GLC reading the word economic with the other part of the act that said not to run at a loss was a broad interpretation of the section. This may conflict parliamentary sovereignty as the council could have been left to continue with its cheap bus fares and it should be for local and national voters and ultimately parliament to decide whether this scheme was of value to society as a whole, with the legislation amended as appropriate.
5