Statutory interpretation

Statutory interpretation can be required when there is complexity of uncertainty arises when judges interpret the law. There are several instances where a judge may call for statues to be interpreted. For example, when there is failure in legislation on a particular point such as, change in the use of language. When there is a form of ambiguity in the statue it can lead to a dispute. Mean a dispute can arise when a statue can have more than one meaning which, could affect the outcome of a case dependent

TRADITIONAL RULES OF STATUTORY INTEPRITATION LEGAL RESEARCH AND WRITING II LAW 108 when parliament has exceeded a certain stage, it falls to the court to apply the statute in a particular case. This can lead to hardship in the sense that the fact of certain issues may not have been concluded by the parliament or where right are been moved as an error in the statute. The three

approach to statutory interpretation has substantially impacted the comprehension of ambiguous statutory language in Canadian courts for several decades. Although there are some drawbacks and flaws in this method, there is a myriad of merits that have positively shaped the interpretation of ambiguous statutory language over the years. When adjudicators are faced with the challenging task of analyzing unclear legislative text, they are obligated to utilizing Driedger 's modern approach to statutory interpretation

country. Generally, statutes, and, prohibit or declare something and sometimes, they are also called as legislation. In this way, statutory interpretation means the interpretation of the statutes by the courts. This interpretation takes place when an Act of the Parliament is not clear and as a result, it creates uncertainty in the law. Therefore, statutory interpretation is required when an Act passed by the Parliament is not clear, for example a term could have been used to covers a number of opportunities

'[t]he courts no longer approach a statute with scissors in one hand and a dictionary in the other'. Critically assess the applicability of this statement as an analysis of the current approach of the judiciary to statutory interpretation in Australia. Statutory interpretation is the legal process whereby a judge applies a statute to a case and must give meaning to the words in the statute in order to decide what they mean and how it should be applied to a particular case. When interpreting statutes

of statutory interpretation because the two different courts that heard the case applied a different from of statutory interpretation. The lower court stuck to a textual interpretation, whereas the court of appeal considered the legislative intent behind the relevant statues. This paper will argue that of the two schools of statutory interpretation applied in the case, textualism and intentionalism, neither is completely appropriate and that the pragmatic approach to statutory interpretation is the

Statutory interpretation is process of interpreting statutes by the judges. The definition of statutes have had very specific words but indeed the judges would still need the statutory interpretation to help them. The reason of this, even how, the words in the statutes are specific but sometimes the words contains ambiguity and vagueness in words. On top of that, each word could give us different meaning. For example, we can find in the Oxford Dictionary where a word would contain at least one meaning

The literal rule of statutory interpretation should be the first rule applied by judges. Under the literal rule, the words of the statute are given their natural or ordinary meaning. They don’t interpret meaning. Lord Diplock in the Duport Steel v Sirs case (1980) defined the rule: “Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not then for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to it’s plain meaning because they consider the consequences

in studying or interpreting written law. They are more of rules of practice than legal rules. Outline the most common of these and give a brief commentary or explanation of the same. RULES OF LANGUAGE IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION. The traditional common-law approach to statutory interpretation was to "look at the words of the Act". This approach was founded on the assumption that the statute alone was a reliable guide to the intent of the Parliament. To assist the courts in interpreting legislation

The case in question is Jaga v Dönges 1950 (4) SA 653 (A), hereafter referred to as Jaga. In the 1950s, Jaga was apprehended for selling unwrought gold. He was thereafter sentenced to “three months imprisonment suspended for three years”. According to section 22 of the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Act 22 of 1913, “Any person who has been sentenced to imprisonment for any offence committed by the sale of unwrought precious metal and who is deemed by the Minister to be an undesirable