Metricon v CCSR (No 2) [2016] NSWSC 332
When a court decides the meaning of a word in one statutory context, it is not precedent for what the same word may mean in a different context2. This case (at [47]) mentioned the ‘inherent flexibility’ of language, and said that decisions of this kind are of ‘persuasive influence’ only…
Lynn v NSW [2016] NSWCA 57
This case makes the point (at [54]) that the objects clause and long title of an Act can be taken into account as aids to construction – you knew that! The first rule, however, is that these things cannot be used ‘to contradict any clear and unambiguous language’, although they may assist in resolving …
Stanizzo v Secretary [2016] NSWSC 348
Books could be written about this. In federal laws, subject to contrary intention, ‘may’ signifies discretion7. But, where a statute says an official ‘may’ confer some benefit subject to preconditions, their satisfaction can create a legal duty to act8.
In this case, the legislation said the official ‘may’ determine costs …
Moreton Bay RC v Mekpine[2016] HCA 7
The High Court again points to the limited role that statutory definitions play. The issue was whether a definition of ‘common areas’ in one Act applied to another – answer ‘no’3. The court said (at [61]) that statutory definitions do ‘no more than define the meaning to be assigned to …
Abblitt v ADC [2016] TASSC 12
Are all statutes interpreted the same way, or does the old rule about reading beneficial provisions liberally still apply? The judge here (at [29]) said it did – the Act was to be given ‘a fair, large and liberal’ interpretation rather than one which is ‘literal or technical’7.
The High Court confirmed …
AFP v Vo [2015] NSWSC 1523
This ancient rule still exerts an influence in modern times. In this proceeds of crime case, it was held (at [17]) that an interpretation which allows a person to take advantage of their own wrong must be resisted.
The principle reflects public policy and illustrates an impact of practical consequences on interpretation. It applies …
SCC Plenty v Construction [2015] VSC 631
This case on adjudication mechanisms in building industry laws makes the point (at [98]) that ‘laws must not command the impossible’. Unless flexibility was applied, said the judge, the legislation ‘could not be made to work’.
The notion of impossibility driving interpretation is another aspect of taking practical implications into account12. …
Plaintiff M68 v Minister [2016] HCA 1
In the offshore detention case, the High Court held the Republic of Nauru to be a ‘person or body’ under regional processing amendments4. Section 2C(1) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 presumes that expressions used to denote persons generally ‘include a body politic or corporate as well as an individual’. Provisions …
ACCC v P T Garuda Indonesia [2016] FCAFC 42
Geography is often important in the application of legislation, especially where ‘Australia’ is used. This case was about whether an air cargo market existed ‘in Australia’. There is a general definition of ‘Australia’ in s 2B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901, but many federal statutes have their own definitions…
Endeavour v Precision [2015] NSWCA 169
What happens when a statutory provision cross-refers to a provision in another Act and the latter is amended? In this case, the second provision was amended after an accident to increase the liability cap. The court held (at [76]) that the first provision picked up the second as amended from time to time. Crucially, …
