Principles

CCSR v Smeaton Grange [2017] NSWCA 184

In 1952, it was said it was ‘beyond the power of the gods … to alter the past’⁹.  This case (at [5-15]) applies that sentiment in the context of disclaimer by the object of a discretionary trust.  Private parties may agree that legal relations between them began from some date in …

Hunter’s Hill Council v Minister [2017] NSWCA 188

Basten JA in this council amalgamation case (at [76-83]) recalls the limits of using dictionaries.  Resort to them is ‘rarely favoured’¹¹, he said, though not for ‘some dismissive or precious attitude’.  It is more because they concern common usage, which may not be reflected in the statutory context.  They may …

Power Rental v Forge Group [2017] NSWCA 8

This case (at [83-91]) tells you almost everything you need to know about the use of extrinsic materials⁴.  They may be consulted to reveal legislative purpose.  But what about using them to determine meaning?  Purpose and meaning are ‘inextricably woven’⁵. 

Section 15AB(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act makes …

DM & Longbow v Willoughby [2017] NSWLEC 1358

Judges often say things about statutory definitions.  That they are no more than an ‘aid to construction’ is a common observation.  This case (at [33]) reinforces the point that the ‘meaning of a definition turns on the context in which it appears, considered as a whole’⁸.  This is consistent with …

Lazarus v ICAC [2017] NSWCA 37

Special care needs to be taken in stating what a case about statutory interpretation is authority for – see Episode 9.  This case (at [87]) says that ‘every word of every judgment’ must be read in its context¹⁰. 

The problem in Lazarus was that too much had been made of what had …

FCT v Jayasinghe [2017] HCA 26

‘No one has ever made an acontextual statement’¹¹ … and neither does parliament!  Context is always important¹².  In this case, the issue was the meaning of ‘holds an office in an international organisation’ in a tax exemption.  The word ‘office’ (at [31]) ‘must not be read in isolation; it must be …

DPP v Acme Storage Pty Ltd [2017] VSCA 90

An issue in this case was the meaning of ‘detriment’ in an anti-discrimination provision – ordinary or technical legal meaning?  The court (at [65-83]) reviewed cases on how ordinary words are to be approached.  Absent contrary indicators, ordinary words in a statute take their ordinary meaning according to ‘logic and common …

ABCC v Powell [2017] FCAFC 89

The mischief rule is an ancient precursor to the purposive approach we apply today in selecting between constructional choices⁷.  What parliament was seeking to remedy is part of the context. 

What happens, however, when the words chosen go beyond mere remediation of the mischief?  This case (at [46-47]) tells us that general …

Tilley v Children’s Guardian [2017] NSWCA 174

Often it’s the simple things that help us when trying to figure out what a provision means.  This case (at [54]) takes us back to the core proposition that ‘statutes are to be read as a whole’¹¹.  To do otherwise only invites the kind of narrowness which the modern purposive approach …

Raptis v City of Melbourne [2017] VSC 247

Episode 19 makes the point that the degree of connection required by phrases like this one depends on purpose and context.  This case (at [43-52]) gives an example.  Raptis ran the Blu-Nite Café from leased premises.  He argued that illegal work by the lessor voided the lease, and he demanded all his …