Constructional choice

Xiao v R [2018] NSWCCA 4

Episode 32 quotes from the High Court in SZTAL on how purpose and context may displace the ordinary meaning of provisions.  The appeal court in Xiao (at [223-224]) does likewise, stressing the ‘importance of considering context in the first instance’. 

The judges in Xiao quote Gageler J in SZTAL for the point that constructional choice between ordinary meaning and some other meaning ‘turns less on linguistic fit than on evaluation of the relative coherence of the alternatives with identified objects or policies’ 8iTip – this is a central principle in the interpretation of statutes, reinforced by parliament  and applied too often now to be doubted.

This case is from Episode 34 of interpretationNOW!


8 Taylor [2014] HCA 9 (at [66]) cited, cf Esso [2017] HCA 54 (at [71]).