Interpretation of Statutes

RUNNING HEAD: INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author’s Note

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES1
Issue:
The issue in the case is whether Madge, KK Ltd and Julian have all breached section 4 of
Good Faith Bill 2017.
Rules:
Interpretation of statutes is the process through which the courts understand the statutes
enacted by the Parliament to bring out the meaning of its objective and application in the relevant
situations. Although the provisions of the Act are laid down in the written form but the process
of interpretation is complex. According to Pearce and Geddes1, Legislation is the medium of
communication and interpretation of legislation is not about commons sense. However, as opined
by Hon M Kirby AC, CMG it has been said that interpretation of legislation is a state of art and
not the boon of science2. The different rules of interpretation of statutes are:
 LITERAL RULE: it is the basic rule where the understanding of legislation implies the
direct extraction of the meaning of the language of the legislation. The political
impartiality is foundation of the rule where the judiciary interprets the legislation in the
direct meaning of the words of the literature without getting into further details.
However, the rule lays emphasis on the fact that it is the duty of the Parliament to make a
law and not the duty of the Judiciary of the same. The duty of the judiciary is the
application of the law within its meaning and imparts decisions in the disputes3.
1 DC Pearce and RS Geddes, Statutory Interpretation in Australia (LexisNexis Butterworths, 8th ed, 2014) 146.
2 Kirby M, ‘Statutory Interpretation: The Meaning of Meaning’ [2011] Melbourne University Law Review 3; (2011)
35(1) Melbourne University Law Review 113; http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/MelbULawRw/2011/3.html
3 Nygh P and Butt P, Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary (Butterworths, 2nd ed, 1998).

INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES2
 GOLDEN RULE: this rule states that the in case there is no ambiguity, and the decision
does not result in the contradiction to the language of the legislation, the literal meaning
of the law should be adhered to being out the meaning of the legislation in its literal
sense4. According to this rule, however discreet the decision shall be, the interpretation
shall be as per the literal meaning of the statute unless and until there is ambiguity found
in the literature of the legislation.
 MISCHIEF RULE: this rule is mostly applied by the English courts wherein the
ambiguous words are construed to detect the defect in the in the existing law and imply
remedy to bring out the meaning of the statute in the best interest of its objective5. It is
the duty of the Judiciary to find the loopholes in the legislation and provide remedy
against it.
 PURPOSE RULE: whenever there is an ambiguity found in the literal approach of the
legislation, the rule is applied to bring out the purpose or the objective of the statute in
order to interpret it as a whole6.
The Western Australia contains a provision for the legislation in the Interpretation Act
1984 (WA) under section 18 and 19 as the provision interpreted as the objective of the
legislation shall be preferred upon the provision construed which does not promote the
purpose of the legislation. The same has been broadly specifies in the Acts Interpretation Act
1901 (Cwlth), section 15AA (1).
In Carr v The State of Western Australia7, the Court has illustrated the modern approach
taken by the Judiciary to bring out the complete meaning to the decision held in any case.
4 Nygh P and Butt P, above n2.
5 Nygh P and Butt P, above n2.
6 Nygh P and Butt P, above n2.
7 [2007] HCA 47.