Always search for an interpretation that gives all the words of a provision some meaning and effect and doesn’t make any of them redundant10. This doesn’t mean every word has to change the provision’s scope or operation – some could have a limited effect, and Parliament may have intended others to be purely explanatory or to help avoid doubt11.
This case shows how courts approach this balancing exercise. A drafting omission meant words in an Act referred to a power which hadn’t actually been granted. The judge (at ) found a construction that meant those words weren’t redundant without going so far as to rewrite the Act.
This case is from Episode 16 of interpretationNOW!
11 Truman & Truman  FamCAFC 4 (at [81-82]).