Grapple Pay v Conroy [2025] NSWCA 171
The Latin term in pari materia means ‘analogous’. Parliament is presumed to intend the same words used in a later statute ‘in a similar connection’ take the same meaning7. The practical application of this depends on the strength of the analogy in question.
In the present case, a suggested analogy between ‘intent to defraud’ provisions in NSW8 and voidable preference provisions in federal bankruptcy laws was rejected. The court said (at [92]) that the different legislative aims and contexts meant that the respective provisions ‘cannot be said to be in pari materia’9. This case illustrates the burden faced in meeting the ‘analogous’ threshold in litigation.
This principle is from Episode 124 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
7 Pearce 10th ed [3.49-3.50], BDM (323), SZTAL [2017] HCA 34 [24].
8 s 37A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW).
9 Pearce 10th ed [3.49] cited, cf Herzfeld & Prince [8.290], Episode 18.