Dinov v Allianz Australia [2017] NSWCA 270
This case (at [65-67]) tells us to construe the text of the law, not language ‘used in the second reading speech or in some explanatory memorandum.’ Statements in explanatory materials about intention ‘cannot overcome the need to carefully consider the words of the statute to ascertain its meaning.7’
In this case, proceedings taken to enforce an indemnity were not a ‘building action’ as defined in the legislation. This meant that they were not affected by the statutory limitation period. iTip – correct use of extrinsic materials is a key thing to understand when interpreting legislation.
This case is from Episode 30 of interpretationNOW!
Footnotes:
7 Saeed v Minister [2010] HCA 23 (at [31]), quoted.