English Legal System and Legal Skills
Added on 2023-06-04
9 Pages2540 Words219 Views
|
|
|
Running head: ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM AND LEGAL SKILLS
English Legal System and Legal Skills
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
English Legal System and Legal Skills
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
1ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM AND LEGAL SKILLS
The case of Magor and St Mellons Rural District Council v. Newport Corporation is the
landmark precedent where the Court of Appeal in its judgment said that it strives to fill in the gap
that a statute may have to which the Parliament intends to have an effect1. The judges opined that
Right to Compensation could be incorporated within the ambit of company property under
Corporations Law. In this case, Lord Denning held that the judges’ foremost duty is to ascertain
the intentions of the Parliament and execute them, even if it requires filling the gaps or lacunas of
the legislations. It was argued that courts should construe the substantive or procedural
meanings in a narrow way and should not try to rectify the shortcomings or wrongs made by the
legislature. It was also added that the court had limited power to interpret the words of the
legislature and has no right to fill the gaps of the statute. Disagreeing with Lord Denning, Lord
Simonds was of the opinion that filling the gap of the legislation would simple result in
interfering with the function of the legislature in the disguise of interpretation. The paper strives
to discuss the principles of interpretation of statutes and its impact on Parliamentary Sovereignty.
Lord Simonds opined that it is the duty of the judge to interpret the laws passed by the
parliament irrespective of the fact whether they are ambiguous or incomplete. Therefore, it may
not always be simple and straightaway grammatical in sense. The principles of interpretation of
statute helps the judges and other legal persons to comprehend and interpret the letters of the law
in the way the Parliament intended while making them. However, in Whitley v. Chappell, Lord
Hailsham stated that most of the cases dealt by the House of Lords and Court of Appeal
involves the use of the literal meaning of the words contained in the statutes.2 The Interpretation
Act of 1978 assists the judges to interpret the statutes and refrains them from acting on their
1 Magor and St Mellons Rural District Council v. Newport Corporation [1951] 2 All ER 839, [1952] AC 189
2 Whitley v. Chappell [1868] 4 LRQB 147
The case of Magor and St Mellons Rural District Council v. Newport Corporation is the
landmark precedent where the Court of Appeal in its judgment said that it strives to fill in the gap
that a statute may have to which the Parliament intends to have an effect1. The judges opined that
Right to Compensation could be incorporated within the ambit of company property under
Corporations Law. In this case, Lord Denning held that the judges’ foremost duty is to ascertain
the intentions of the Parliament and execute them, even if it requires filling the gaps or lacunas of
the legislations. It was argued that courts should construe the substantive or procedural
meanings in a narrow way and should not try to rectify the shortcomings or wrongs made by the
legislature. It was also added that the court had limited power to interpret the words of the
legislature and has no right to fill the gaps of the statute. Disagreeing with Lord Denning, Lord
Simonds was of the opinion that filling the gap of the legislation would simple result in
interfering with the function of the legislature in the disguise of interpretation. The paper strives
to discuss the principles of interpretation of statutes and its impact on Parliamentary Sovereignty.
Lord Simonds opined that it is the duty of the judge to interpret the laws passed by the
parliament irrespective of the fact whether they are ambiguous or incomplete. Therefore, it may
not always be simple and straightaway grammatical in sense. The principles of interpretation of
statute helps the judges and other legal persons to comprehend and interpret the letters of the law
in the way the Parliament intended while making them. However, in Whitley v. Chappell, Lord
Hailsham stated that most of the cases dealt by the House of Lords and Court of Appeal
involves the use of the literal meaning of the words contained in the statutes.2 The Interpretation
Act of 1978 assists the judges to interpret the statutes and refrains them from acting on their
1 Magor and St Mellons Rural District Council v. Newport Corporation [1951] 2 All ER 839, [1952] AC 189
2 Whitley v. Chappell [1868] 4 LRQB 147
2ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM AND LEGAL SKILLS
whims and fancies3. For example the provisions referring to a ‘he’, most necessarily cover a
‘she’ as well; similarly the provisions referring to a singular entity would definitely include
plural and vice versa4. The three rules of interpretation of Statue – the literal, the golden and the
mischief rule covers the entire method of interpretation of the laws by the court.
The Literal Rule
The literal rule or the grammatical rule of interpretation lays down the literal and ordinary
meaning of the words. It refers to the simple grammatical or dictionary meaning of the words
used in the statutes. It strictly follows the literal meaning that a man of ordinary prudence would
understand by going through the legislations to interpret the intention of the Parliament5.
However, this rule sometimes create ambiguity, which leads the court to look for other ways to
interpret. In Whitley v. Chappell the defendant had voted by impersonating a dead person, while
the law said that it would be unlawful to impersonate ‘any person’ who is entitled to vote6.
Therefore, by applying the literal rule, the court acquitted the defendant, as a ‘dead person’ is no
person in literal sense and therefore has no right to vote. Similarly, in London and North Eastern
Railway Company v. Berriman it was held that compensation would be granted to the survivor of
the deceased only if the deceased died in the course of employment7. In this case, the deceased
was doing certain maintenance work on the railway track when he died, however the court held
that the deceased was not particularly ‘repairing or relaying’ the tracks as the requirement of the
employment and the relevant statute. In I. R. C. v. Hinchy, it was held that the court could only
understand the basic intention of the Parliament by interpreting the words of the statute by
3 The Interpretation Act 1978
4 London and North Eastern Railway Company v Berriman [1946] HL
5 Baude, William, and Stephen E. Sachs. "The law of interpretation." Harv. L. Rev. 130 (2016): 1079.
6 Whitley v. Chappell [1868] 4 LRQB 147
7 London and North Eastern Railway Company v Berriman [1946] HL
whims and fancies3. For example the provisions referring to a ‘he’, most necessarily cover a
‘she’ as well; similarly the provisions referring to a singular entity would definitely include
plural and vice versa4. The three rules of interpretation of Statue – the literal, the golden and the
mischief rule covers the entire method of interpretation of the laws by the court.
The Literal Rule
The literal rule or the grammatical rule of interpretation lays down the literal and ordinary
meaning of the words. It refers to the simple grammatical or dictionary meaning of the words
used in the statutes. It strictly follows the literal meaning that a man of ordinary prudence would
understand by going through the legislations to interpret the intention of the Parliament5.
However, this rule sometimes create ambiguity, which leads the court to look for other ways to
interpret. In Whitley v. Chappell the defendant had voted by impersonating a dead person, while
the law said that it would be unlawful to impersonate ‘any person’ who is entitled to vote6.
Therefore, by applying the literal rule, the court acquitted the defendant, as a ‘dead person’ is no
person in literal sense and therefore has no right to vote. Similarly, in London and North Eastern
Railway Company v. Berriman it was held that compensation would be granted to the survivor of
the deceased only if the deceased died in the course of employment7. In this case, the deceased
was doing certain maintenance work on the railway track when he died, however the court held
that the deceased was not particularly ‘repairing or relaying’ the tracks as the requirement of the
employment and the relevant statute. In I. R. C. v. Hinchy, it was held that the court could only
understand the basic intention of the Parliament by interpreting the words of the statute by
3 The Interpretation Act 1978
4 London and North Eastern Railway Company v Berriman [1946] HL
5 Baude, William, and Stephen E. Sachs. "The law of interpretation." Harv. L. Rev. 130 (2016): 1079.
6 Whitley v. Chappell [1868] 4 LRQB 147
7 London and North Eastern Railway Company v Berriman [1946] HL
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents