University Law Assignment: Statutory Interpretation Case Analysis

This case study examines the interpretation of the Apartment and Unit Resident Obligations Act, focusing on whether residents Karam and Kate are liable for breaches of sections 3 and 4. The analysis applies principles of statutory interpretation, including the literal, golden, and mischief rules, as endorsed by the Australian High Court. The case considers the Act's purpose of promoting harmony and preventing offensive behavior. The analysis determines whether Kate's teaching and smoking constitute commercial activity or undue odors, respectively, considering the context and intent of the legislation. The conclusion finds that Kate and Karam are not liable under the Act, based on the application of the interpretation rules and the specific facts of the case. The document includes relevant case law and a bibliography of legal sources.

Running head: STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Statutory Interpretation
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Issue
The issue in this case is to find out the appropriate interpretation of provisions of the
Apartment and Unit Resident Obligations Act so that it can be determined whether Karam and
Kate are liable for the breach of section 3 and 4 of the Act.
Rule
During the last few years the high court of Australia has endorsed without any dispute a
few principles which are required to properly give meaning to legislation. Among such principles
the most important is that in case the law which is applicable is expressly provided in the
legislation the appropriate point to start the analysis of the law is the text of the legislation and
not any common law or elaborations of the provisions by courts. In addition it has been provided
by the court that for the purpose of giving meaning and bringing out the intention of the
parliament in relation to a provision it would not be a correct steps towards only considering
status dirty words separately. For the purpose of adopting a proper approach the meaning of the
words in relation to the legislation have to be analyzed based on the fact that how search words
appear in the context of the legislation. Therefore at the very least the judges must examine the
total sentence along with the paragraphs and more appropriately the provisions immediately
surrounding the rule for the purpose of properly giving meaning to the words of legislation1.
In the famous case of Carr v The State of Western Australia2 the courts not only
considered the text or the legislation but also the purpose at the overall context where the text fits
1 Kirby M, ‘Statutory Interpretation: The Meaning of Meaning’ [2011] Melbourne University Law Review 3; (2011)
35(1) Melbourne University Law Review 113
2 [2007] HCA 47

2
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
in the registration. This approach by the court leads to an appropriate interpretation of the
legislation3.
The judge has a fundamentally textual task of interpretative constitutional statutory of
subordinate legislation. Judge should not stay very far from the text show the consideration of
policy or context. The fundamental for the judicial task on the task of a citizen or a lawyer with
respect to the interpretation of legislation is the text. Constitutional Foundation exists in relation
to the text obedience. Therefore at most relevance should be given to the text to provide
meaning to the statue4.
As per the traditional approach there are three basic rules of statutory interpretation
which are divided into Golden Rule, Literal Rule and Mischief Rule. According to the
interpretation act 1979 section 6A provision of an Act has to be constructed with respect to
purpose of the Act and must not be exceed the powers which have been provided by the act5.
According to the Literal rule of interpretation the words and phrases of a legislation is to
be given the ordinary or dictionary meaning to bring out the intention of the parliament.
According to the golden rule of Interpretation unless there is ambiguity the natural and
ordinary meaning is given to statue.
According to the Mischief Rule of statutory Interpretation, giving meaning to ambiguous phrase
or word with respect to the legislation is done by giving relevance to the defect or mischief
which the provisions seeks to rectify6
3 Kelly v The Queen (2004) 218 CLR 216
4 Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512
5 Staszewski, Glen. "The Dumbing Down of Statutory Interpretation." (2015).
6 Nygh P and Butt P, Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary (Butterworths, 6th ed, 2011).

3
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
The objective of the Act is to prevent dangerous and offensive behavior by unit and
apartment residents. The Act through section 2 provides that a resident is a person who owns
leases or is in-charge or the apartment. Further a business activity is defined as any action in
relation to operating a commercial enterprise or activities related to customers. Section 3 of the
Act states that a resident must not indulge in an action which causes offensive odors, undue noise
or any annoyance to the other residents of the apartment after 10pm and before 6am and the
breach of the section attracts a penalty of $400. Section 4 of the Act states that a resident should
not conduct a business activity in relation to an apartment at any time, breach of the section
results in a penalty of $2400
Application
In this given scenario the new legislation has been brought to promote harmony between
the residences along with their well being as the density of people residing in the area has
increased over the last 5 years.
The Act defines commercial activities as any activity which is related to customers what
is in the course of business. It is specifically provided by the act that no person at any time living
in the apartment is allowed to carry on a business activity.
In relation to Section 4 it can be said that the words defining a business activity is not
clear and ambiguous and thus the golden rule of interpretation can be used in this case. In this
case it can be provided that the Legislature would not consider teaching as a commercial activity
as in the society it is most of the time is a community development activity. Using the golden
rule it can be stated that Kate was only teaching and having a discussion with Karam and

4
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
therefore it should not be treated as a commercial activity given that the purpose of the act is to
promote harmony and not unnecessary punishment for the residents.
The act clearly provides that the residents must not cause undue orders after 10 p.m.
before 6 A.M which would annoy The Other Apartment residence. The meaning of what can be
regarded as undue has not been provided by the Act. In the given situation smoking cannot be
regarded as undue odours because the smell generated from it is not so harsh that it would annoy
resident living in another apartment. In addition the police only found the Astra which was
overflowing but there was no proof that they have smoke all the cigarettes after 10 pm to cause
the inconvenience claimed by the other resident.
Conclusion
Therefore considering the text, purpose and the position of the text in the context of the
legislation it can be provided that Kate and Karam is not liable to be prosecuted under section 3
and 4 of the Act.

5
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
Bibliography
Brodie v Singleton Shire Council (2001) 206 CLR 512
Carr v The State of Western Australia [2007] HCA 47
Kelly v The Queen (2004) 218 CLR 216
Kirby M, ‘Statutory Interpretation: The Meaning of Meaning’ [2011] Melbourne University Law
Review 3; (2011) 35(1) Melbourne University Law Review 113
Nygh P and Butt P, Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary (Butterworths, 6th ed,
2011).
Staszewski, Glen. "The Dumbing Down of Statutory Interpretation." (2015).