click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Stack #4566583
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Literal rule | literal definition of word |
| cases | whitely v chappel LNER v Berriman Fisher v Bell |
| Advantage | predictable outcome |
| disadvantage | Absurdity/unjust outcome words have more than 1 meaning/definition |
| Golden rule | look at literal meaning but to apply it would cause an absurdity narrow broad |
| Narrow approach | More than 1 meaning so judges choose what one to use |
| Broad approach | 1 meaning but to apply would cause an absurdity so judge modifies |
| cases | Resigsworth Allen Adler v George |
| Advantage | Allows judges to choose most sensible meaning prevents problems cause be literal rule |
| Disadvantage | Absurdity may mean diff things to diff judges unconstitutional may give judges too much powe |
| Mischief rule | look at law before the act was passed to look at the gap/mischief that the act intended to cover |
| Cases | Heydons case Smith v hughes RCN v DHSS |
| Advantage | Helps remove the absurdity/injustice promotes purpose of the act |
| Disadvantage | unconstitutional risk of judicial law making outdated made in 1500s |
| Purposive approach | Look at gap in old law but also the purpose of the act judge trying to see what parliament wanted to achieve with the act |
| Cases | Ex parte smith v Secretary of state, Fitzpatrick v SHA |
| Advantage | Avoid absurdity/injustice gives effect to parliaments true intentions |
| Disadvantage | only used if judge finds parliaments intention which is hard to find trying to find the intention relies on extrinsic aids heydons case |
| Intrinsic aids | The long title preamble schedules interpretation section individual section objective section |