Crossley v English [2025] WASCA 141
This water access case (at [101-106]) considers the ‘principle of co-interpretation’ – that being, when one Act amends another, the two are read together ‘as one connected and combined statement of the will of parliament’10. The principle applies at both common law and under statute11, though the latter ‘has added nothing of substance’ to the former12.
The term ‘co-interpretation’ was coined in Victoria13. It reflects our ‘modern approach’, and may assist in determining the hierarchy of conflicting provisions. Nothing in the ‘combined statement’ of the law here denied to a downstream landowner a cause of action against an upstream one damming the river.
This principle is from Episode 126 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
10 Sportsbet [2011] FCA 961 [51] quoted, cf Pearce 10th ed [7.29].
11 Sweeney 4 CLR 716 (735), s 11B Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) resp.
12 Pearce IAIA [2.27] citing WMC Resources [1998] HCA 8 [200-201].
13 Shields v Chief Commissioner of Police [2008] VSC 2 [102] Kevin Bell J.