Statutory interpretation Rules of language

Rules of language Ejusdem generis rule; Expressio unius exclusio alterius; Noscitur a sociis

Ejusdem generis Means “of the same kind” Where there is a list of words which is followed by general words these general rules are limited to the same kind of items as the specific rules

Ejusdem generis case law Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse D was chared with keeping a ‘house, office, room or other place for betting’ He was operating betting outside Court decided that the ‘other place’ must also be indoors

Ejusdem generis case law Must be at least two specific words in the list before a general one Allen v Emmerson ‘Theatres and other places of amusement’ Could include a funfair as there were not enough specific words for the rule to operate

Expressio unius exclusio alterius Translates as “the mention of one thing excludes others2 Where there is a list of words which is not followed by general words then the act includes only the words in the list

Expressio unius exclusio alterius case law Tempest v Kilner court had to decide whether stocks and shares could be included in ‘goods, wares and merchandise’ There were no general words and therefore only those three terms were included

Noscitur a sociis ‘A word is known by the company it keeps’ Words must be looked at in context Involves words in the same and other sections in the Act

Squares activity Each black square has 8 white squares which fit around it Arrange your squares in this manner

Noscitur a sociis case law Inland Revenue Commissioners v Frere ‘interests, annuities or other annual interest’ Interest on its own could have meant any interest but because of the words other annual interest meant that only yearly interest was included

Noscitur a sociis case law Bromley LBC v Greater London Council considered other sections of the act. Did the word ‘economic’ mean that a company could not run at a loss? Based on other sections of the act the court decided that it did.

Presumptions Courts will as a starting point make the following presumptions, these can be rebutted by other wording of the act. Presumption against a change in the common law; Presumption that mens rea is required; A presumption that the Crown is not bound; and That legislation does not apply retrospectively

Presumption against a change in the common law Common law will apply as long as the act says expressly that it doesn’t Leach v R act didn’t say that a wife could be compelled to give evidence against her husband so the common law that she couldn’t remained (this law has now changed)

Presumption that mens rea is required Sweet v Parsley act didn’t mention mens rea so this presumption applied