BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ... - Francis Bennion
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ... - Francis Bennion
BENNION ON STATUTORY INTERPRETATION ... - Francis Bennion
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
<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 />
In Rani Santosh v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 1493 the<br />
Federal Court of Australia applied Code s 288(2) to rule that a reference in an Act to<br />
regulations made under it referred such regulations as amended from time to time. The court<br />
also applied s 288(2) in Wojciech Marian Szelagowicz v John W Stocker, Brian G Gibbs,<br />
Gerald Neil Haddad and William Mark Tunningley [1994] FCA 1110; (1994) 35 ALD 16, at<br />
[18].<br />
Page 892 Relevant Index entry: updating construction:definition of<br />
The expression „Yet their words remain law‟ was cited by the Israeli Supreme Court in Solel<br />
Boneh Building and Infrastructure Ltd and another v Estate of the late Ahmed Abed Alhamid<br />
deceased and others (2006) LCA 8925/04 at [8], where the court went on to cite President<br />
Barak‟s dictum: „Interpretation is an ever-changing process. Modern content should be given to<br />
the old language. Thus the disparity between the statute and life is reduced. Against this<br />
background it is correct to say, as Radbruch did, that the interpreter may understand the statute<br />
better than the creator of the statute, and that the statute is always wiser than its creator. This<br />
leads to the interpretive approach that is accepted in England, whereby statute should be given<br />
an updating interpretation . . .‟<br />
Page897-899 Relevant Index entry: updating construction:law, changes in<br />
As to Example 288.15 see Sonea v Mehedinti District Court, Romania [2009] EWHC 89<br />
(Admin), [2009] 2 All ER 821.<br />
Page 907-909 Relevant Index entry: updating construction:words, change of meaning of, and<br />
For a reference to „the modern meaning of “rent”‟ see Mason v Boscawen [2008] EWHC 3100<br />
(Ch) at [52].<br />
Page 908 Relevant Index entry: box principle<br />
The Court of Appeal departed from the principle of the decision described in Example 288.37<br />
in R v Cockburn [2008] EWCA Crim 316; [2008] 2 All ER 1153.<br />
The Family Court of Australia upheld the box principle in Attorney-General for the<br />
Commonwealth & ‘Kevin and Jennifer’ & Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission<br />
[2003] FamCA 94 at [137][138].<br />
Pages 910-911 Section 288(3) Relevant Index entry: private Act:interpretation of<br />
This passage was relied on in Re Scottish Water [2004] ScotsCS 41 at [19]. There is an<br />
interesting discussion of it by the High Court of Australia in Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd<br />
[1995] HCA 24; (1995) 131 ALR 422; (1995) 69 ALJR 797; (1995) 185 CLR 410 (see passage<br />
at footnote 148).<br />
Pages 912-914 Relevant Index entry: contemporanea expositio<br />
For a useful discussion see Isle of Anglesey Council and another v Welsh Ministers and others<br />
[2009] EWCA Civ 94, [2009] 3 All ER 1110, at [39]-[50].<br />
Part XIX. The Mischief and its Remedy<br />
Section 294. Party-political mischiefs<br />
Page 928 Relevant Index entry: law-churning<br />
This topic is further dealt with in FB‟s 2008 article „Law-Churning and the Sociologists‟.<br />
Part XX. Purposive Construction<br />
Section 304. Nature of purposive construction<br />
www.francisbennion.com/5th-edn<br />
51