BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ... - Francis Bennion
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ... - Francis Bennion
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ... - Francis Bennion
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>BENNI<strong>ON</strong></strong> <strong>ON</strong> <strong>STATUTORY</strong> INTERPRETATI<strong>ON</strong><br />
Fifth Edition Updating Notes (Version 24, 25 Mar 2010)<br />
Section 278. Statutory interference with economic interests<br />
Page 846 Relevant Index entry: legal policy:property rights, and<br />
Code s 278 was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Re Centronics Systems Pty Ltd;<br />
Maurice Latin; Tiberio Salice and Fabrizio Latin v Nintendo Company Ltd [1992] FCA 584;<br />
(1992) 111 ALR 13 (1992) 24 IPR 481 (1992) 39 FCR 147, at [81]. It was considered by the<br />
Federal Court of Australia in Re Registrar of Liquor Licences v Peter Iliadis; John Iliadis;<br />
Yfigenia Iliadis; Ilias Spyridopoulos and Despina Spyridopoulos [1988] FCA 328 at [13].<br />
Page 848 Relevant Index entry: legal policy:property rights, and<br />
This principle was described by Walker J as „well-established‟ in The Independent Committee<br />
for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services v Andronikou & Ors [2007]<br />
EWHC 2307 (Admin) at [25]. As to the passage before Example 278.8 see Re An Application<br />
for Judicial Review, Landlords Association for Northern Ireland, [2005] NIQB 22 at [41].<br />
Section 281. Statutory interference with rights of legal process<br />
Pages 853-858 Relevant Index entry: legal policy:legal process, rights of [New entry, not in fifth<br />
edition]<br />
Code s 281 was applied by the Federal Court of Australia in Kevin Walker v Secretary,<br />
Department of Social Security [1995] FCA 1136; (1995) 129 ALR 198 (1995) 36 ALD 513<br />
(1995) 21 Aar 147, at [19].<br />
Pages 857-858 Section 281 Relevant Index entry: appeal:right of<br />
As to the right of a non-party to be joined as an appellant or respondent see George Wimpey UK<br />
Ltd v Tewkesbury Borough Council (MA Holdings Ltd intervening) [2008 EWCA Civ 12,<br />
[2008] 3 All ER 859.<br />
Division Five. Interpretative Presumptions Based on the Nature of<br />
Legislation<br />
Part XVIII. Interpretative Presumptions (General)<br />
Section 285. Presumption that literal meaning to be followed<br />
Page 864 Relevant Index entry: literal construction:presumption regarding [New entry, not in fifth<br />
edition]<br />
Code s 285 was considered in Maguire v Director of Public Prosecutions [2004] 3 IR 241 and<br />
Kelly v Minister for Defence & Anor [2008] IEHC 223.<br />
Pages 868-869 Relevant Index entry: time:commonsense construction rule and<br />
See Knowsley Housing Trust v White [2008] UKHL 70 at [12]. Where power is given to act<br />
against a person it will be inferred that it is to be done within a reasonable period: R (on the<br />
application of SK) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 1204,<br />
[2009] 2 All ER 365, at [8], [9].<br />
Section 286. Presumption that consequential construction to be given<br />
Page 871 Relevant Index entry: consequential construction:‘beneficent‟ consequences of<br />
See R (on the application of Hammersmith & Fulham LBC and others v Secretary of State for<br />
Health [1997] EWHC Admin 658. The principle was applied by the Court of Appeal of New<br />
Zealand in Warwick Henderson Gallery Limited v Weston [2005] NZCA 272 at [41].<br />
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn<br />
49