English Legal System Project Essay
Added on 2021-02-20
13 Pages4324 Words51 Views
|
|
|
English legal systemproject
Table of ContentsINTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................3MAIN BODY ..................................................................................................................................3Development of statutory interpretation is for removing issues generated by ambiguities inlaw...............................................................................................................................................3System precedent makes it very difficult to unjust decisions which shall be overruled. Doesone agree or does not agree to such criticisms............................................................................7CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................8.........................................................................................................................................................9References .....................................................................................................................................10
Essay 1Development of statutory interpretation is for removing issues generated by ambiguities in law.The basic purpose of this essay shall be to conclude and emphasise upon correctapplication of statutory interpretation & its rules. In general cases courts are pitched to makeexact interpretation i.e. to explain some word or phrase which is used in any statute. Suchdisputes can arise due to any issue or misunderstandings in understanding basic meaning of law. The basic issue is the lack for correct interpretation and communication in law for explainingthings briefly. This lets an open view for judiciary to interfere & giving correct interpretation.The correct meaning of statutory interpretation is to give correct translation of any writtendocument. This law follows interpretation act 1978, which give only a little scope ofunderstanding common provisions and resumption of all contexts of laws since here, masculineform of text includes feminine context and most of singular sentences are actually plural(Iqbaland Hashmi, 2015).Their are three basic methods in which interpreting a statue is done through literal,golden and mischief rule. All the rules which are mentioned are to be explained with differentcase laws(Erasmus, Grobler and Van Niekerk, 2015).The basic literal rule is defined by an landmark case of Fisher vs bell (1960).In this case defendant is a shopkeeper who puts up a knife on display on which its price wasmentioned. The shop had a sign of “offering for sale” he was prosecuted under the Restriction ofOffensive Weapons Act 1959 as it was considered to be offensive and came under illegalweaponising. In contract law interpretation of shopkeepers display was just an invitation forbuying that product. Here, it was pre-assumed that draftsmen at parliament should know thebasic technical language and common law was not changed in the case(Chaudhary and Bhaskar,201).The second rule which is golden rule is actually a extensive branch of literal rule but ishas both a broader and narrow perspective which can be explained by the landmark case. Adlervs George (1964) in this case access to RAF station & all members of the majesty with securitiesand duties to be “in vicinity in an area of abandoned place”. Here the interpretation was doneover the official secrets act 1920, in which it was allowed to make a public demonstration in areaof military but not outside that areas. This created the contradiction of creating chaos and
absurdity(Hakeem and Gulzar, 2015).The defendant here was found guilty even if his intensionwas not that. The interpretation of such term was taken wrong and he was put up to be guilty.Later in the courts judge's make a proper clarification on the fact that “in the vicinity of” shall beinterpreted to be next to any restricted area or zone. The court here applied golden rule and statedthat inherit will not assume accused for being guilty.The last and final rule which is used in the interpretation law is mischief rules where anyjudge has to interpret the correct contradiction and meaning of the laws. In here the basic remedyor solution is seek by the person and in the end the basic ultimate purpose is to create effectiveimplementation of laws so that any or to misunderstanding can be avoided. The classicstatement of the mischief rule is that given by the Barons of the Court of Exchequer inHeydon’s Case (1854): “...for the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general, fourthings are to be discerned and considered(Raja and Kumar, 2016).In the basic modern world there are several cases which will be done for fact that whencompanies merge with each other there are always contradictions between he laws which are tobe applied. The terms & conditions over which an contractual agreement is formed is alwaysformed with negations from both sides and this subject can always create mess in future. Theirare certain rights and privileges which are given to them. In some cases these rights are breachedand broken to which several contradictions are created because of wrong interpretation of lawsand rights. This can be understood with correct case law which was held in court of TWITraining and Certification (SE Asia) the case is named as Sdn Bhd v Jose A Sebastian [1998] 2ILR 879. In this case it was recognised that company has certain rights to construct and reconstruct or merge under the managerial prerogative area. This decided fact that there are severalprivilege which shall be used in best interest and out come for company. This is also done by thecompany to define or pick out weakness of company and recover it back with several changeswhich are needed for correct implementation(Imna and Hassan, 2015).On the same stream their was some another case in which, interpretation creates issuesand distinctively it was solved by intervention of judiciary in case. The court in case of, HongLeong Equipment Sdn Bhd v Liew Fook Chuan & Anor [1996] 1 MLJ 481. in this case theemployees who do not fall into the view of employment act 1955 shall also have their contractsmaintained from its provisions and fall back.
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents