Logged out
Access All our Essays in an Instant
Swap your work for FREE access, or pay £4.99 for instant access
Most cases that reach our higher courts concern the interpretation, that is to say the meaning, of words in a statute. The reasons vary
Member rating: No Rating | Words: | Submitted: Wed Dec 07 2005
Page Preview
On the left is an image preview of every page of this document, and below are the first 150 words with formatting removed:
1a) Most cases that reach our higher courts concern the interpretation, that is to say the meaning, of words in a statute. The reasons vary, for example words may be ambiguous Fisher v Bell; or broad or Parliamentary Counsel may have made a drafting error (Inco Europe v First Choice Distribution); or overtaken by technology (Royal College of Nursing v Department of Health). Over the years, the courts have established three rules to resolve these problems, namely the literal, golden and mischief rules. The literal rule was developed two hundred years ago and it is based on the strict constitutional notion of Parliamentary supremacy. Arguably, an absurd result was achieved in Fisher v Bell (the flick-knives case) and in L&NER v Berriman, where a railway worker's widow was denied compensation on a technicality. However, this line of reasoning has essentially fallen into disrepute and the courts will go to great lengths not...
Get instant access
- Instant, unlimited access to our documents in full
- Swap your work for free access, or pay £4.99
- To see the full version of this document and 147,195 others
Receive email updates for this category
- Simply tell us your email address and receive a weekly Study Help Email for FREE
- Receive 3 FREE essay views with each email
- Get all the latest essays from Coursework.Info & discussion from TheStudentRoom.co.uk
