FW Aviation v Vietjet Aviation [2026] QSC 63
Vietjet argued that registration of an English judgment against it be set aside, as it was for an amount greater than the amount ‘payable’ at the date of registration10. McCafferty J held that it was the total amount payable, not the amount ‘presently payable’, to which the statute was directed.
The judge emphasised the importance of purpose, noting 2 things – (A) purpose resides in the text and structure of a statute even where it is ‘identified by reference to common law and statutory rules of construction’11, and (B) where literal meaning does not conform to the evident purpose, it is ‘entirely appropriate’ to depart from that meaning12.
This principle is from Episode 134 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
10 Payment was by instalments some of which were not yet due.
11 Lacey [2011] HCA 10 [44] quoted, cf Lilley [2013] FCAFC 121 [67-69].
12 A2 [2019] HCA 35 [37], cf Conroy’s Smallgoods [2023] FCAFC 59 [24-28].