UNSW Global v CCSR [2016] NSWSC 1852
Sometimes the ordinary, literal meaning of a provision will not remedy the mischief it was meant to address, and you’ll need to look for an alternative reading of the text3. However, White J (at [47-50]) reminds us to be careful not to adopt a position that addresses the mischief parliament had in mind only to create some ‘disproportionate counter-mischief’4.
This is another instance of considering the consequences of competing interpretations5. In this payroll tax case, a literal reading of the provisions addressed the basic mischief but produced ‘far-reaching and unintended consequences’. iTip – be careful in reasoning from consequences generally.
This case is from Episode 22 of interpretationNOW!
Footnotes:
3 Alcan [2009] HCA 41 (at [47]), Episode 2 – Constructional choices.
4 Bennion (5ed at 901-904).
5 Episode 7 – Inconvenience.