TRG sought, under limitation provisions5, an order setting aside a settlement agreement so that fresh proceedings could be taken against the school. Davis J refused to do so and (at ) commented on the proper way to identify statutory purpose.
The search is never for any subjectively held purpose of any legislator6. It is a wholly objective exercise. Given the provisions in question contained no express objects, Davis J (at ) relied on the text of the particular provisions and the wider context to derive the purpose. He also cautioned against blind acceptance of objects expressed at too high a level or in terms too abstract to be of practical use7.
This case is from Episode 50 of interpretationNOW!
5 s 48(5A) of the Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (Q).