Episodes

In a recent election case, a plurality of the High Court made the following comments¹ – ‘The identification of legislative purpose involves ‘ordinary processes of interpretation, including considering the meanings of statutory words in the provision, meanings of other provisions in the statute, the historical background to the provision, and any apparent social objective’. A number of …

In a recent patents case, Edelman J made observations about the importance of context and purpose in interpretation¹.  The general point (at [97]) is that fixing the meaning of express words, drawing inferences within a provision or implying new content into one are all best considered as a kind of ‘continuum’.  The judge made 2 points.  First, implications …

In Stanley v DPP, Basten JA draws attention to one of the most basic basics of our system¹.  The judge channelled Project Blue Sky in turn quoting Bennion² – ‘The distinction between literal and legal meaning lies at the heart of the problem of statutory interpretation.  An enactment consists of a verbal formula.  Unless defectively worded, …

Episode 78 dealt with how best to use iNOW! under an easy ‘1-2-3 system’.  Ultimately, it is about getting the reader to the latest intel relevant to their issue as fast as possible.  Selection of cases each month for this purpose is a much slower process.  While the High Court often frames interpretation themes briefly and in systemic terms¹…

The High Court in Port of Newcastle said the principles of interpretation are ‘familiar’ and ‘can seem banal’¹.  This case, about ‘access’ to port facilities², is a refresher on four of those principles.  1 – The term is read as ‘always speaking’³.  2 – It is construed within its ‘broader context’.  3 – The …

Statutory interpretation was once seen as a ‘non-subject’¹ and judges told people not to read books on it².  We now live in ‘the age of statutes’, however, and things could not be more different.  Working out what statutes mean is the singular most important legal skill to have in the 21^st century.  Textbooks are crucial to …

Every statute is a ‘diktat by the state to the citizen’¹.  Interpretation of these diktats really matters.  A recent case where a mining company sued the State on constitutional grounds illustrates this².  The main issue was whether amendments validly took away the benefit of earlier arbitral awards³.  Part of the argument was whether State …

Rarely comes a case that is truly iconoclastic, but Thaler v Commissioner of Patents is one of them¹.  It smashes the cherished norm that an ‘inventor’ must be a natural person.  In a world first, Beach J held that an AI system (known as DABUS) can be an ‘inventor’ for patent law purposes² – here, of a …

As the ‘circle of meaning’ diagram in Episode 66 illustrates, the process of interpretation begins and ends with the text of the law.  A recent case shows why this is important – Minister v ERY19¹.  Two options were available on how to read a migration ‘character test’, neither of which was clearly correct.  The plurality (at [77]) said …

Moorcroft is a High Court migration decision about when a person is ‘removed from Australia’¹.  Given the issues raised, there was some expectation the case would delve into various interpretation areas, perhaps providing new perspectives or extended analysis.  This didn’t happen.  In a unanimous judgment, the court merely said (at [15]) the provision had ‘to be interpreted by …