lOMoARcPSD|13097948
LAWS101 Summary for entire course
Legal System: Legal Method and Institutions (University of Canterbury)
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Emma Grant ()
, lOMoARcPSD|13097948
L1
Statutory Interpretation
• First week looking at statutes as a source of law and why its needed
• 3 cornerstones of statutes: text, purpose, and context
• Integrating the 3 elements in practical problem-based reasoning
• Authoritative international law can be in foreign languages, eg Te Reo and English
• Key provisions of NZBORA that deal with statutes on human rights
• Exam Preparations using past papers
Tutorials for the term
1. W/c 26 July discussion only
2. W/c 9 August group feedback
3. W/c 23 August individual feedback
• Scenarios that will require application of statutory interpretation principles and techniques
• Test Tues 14 Sept: similar to work in tutorials, interpreting legislation
L2
Statutes as a source of law
Common Law, Statute Law, Customary Law (an earlier state of legal affairs)
• Common law and statute law interact with one another. Eg, Parliament can seek to codify some
aspect of common/ case law ie, Contractual Remedies Act 1979
• There also common law principles about what a statute means. Judges can develop their
interpretations on what statutes mean
• Statute law is dominant source of law in NZ
o Institutionally, Parliament is the supreme law making body of NZ. Where the law by
statutes conflicts with common/ case law, statute law trumps common law
o Functionally, statutes have whittled away the effect of common law. Eg, Crimes Act
1961 codified and replaced the common law framework of offences and crimes
• Statute created by Parliament is deliberate and prospective, cf common law where law is
created only when prompted by adversarial courts
o Statutes—> Parliament
o Statutory Regulation—> Executive/ delegated legislation
o By-laws—> Local Council/ Govts
• With stat. int., we always look at what Parliament intended
What is statutory interpretation?
• Method by which legal professionals read, analyse, and apply (text, purpose, context) legislation
to give proper effect to the parliamentary purpose behind that legislation
o Read/ Text: understand how it’s written, identify relevant parts of the text of the statute
o Analyse/ Context: understanding the words of the statute in context, by reference to
contextual clues, eg looking at debates of the house
o Apply/ Purpose: giving effect to proper purpose behind that legislation, as intended by
Parliament. This is why we do stat. int.
• NZ now follows the purposive approach in modern times, developing from the historic
approaches (literal rule, golden rule, mischief rule)
• Stat. Int. is a subset of the wider topic of “Statute Law”
Downloaded by Emma Grant ()
, lOMoARcPSD|13097948
Literal Rule Interpretation
• Words should be given their ordinary meaning
• Outside contextual indicators of purpose have no role to play in interpreting
• Can lead to thwarting clear Parliamentary intention behind an enactment because of the way
the words have been drafted, eg Whiteley v Chappell (1868)
• Though NZ has moved to the modern approach that considers context, nevertheless if the words
are clear and unambiguous provided the purpose of the statute adds up to the words, then that
is enough and the literal rule can hold, eg Auckland City Council v Glaucina
Golden Rule Interpretation
• Can look beyond ordinary meaning of the words to prevent interpretations which are absurd or
ambiguous, but no further
• Look to purpose to make the provision along the lines of what was originally intended for it
Mischief Rule of Interpretation
• Most similar to the modern purposive approach
• This rule has its genesis from the Heydon case: stat. int. should consider four matters:
1. State of existing common law
2. “Mischief” or “defect” within the state of law
3. “Remedy” Parliament sought to apply to cure the defect
4. True reason behind the imposition of that remedy
• Has regard for purpose but is limited because there is a focus on defect and fixing something.
Sometimes there isn’t something to fix when enacting law, eg AI law
L3
Purposive Approach:
• Captured in the Interpretation Act 1999, s 5(1)
o “the meaning of an enactment must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its
purpose”
o Parliament codified this approach into statute, but it had been around for some time
• In the Fonterra 2007 case, the purposive approach from s 5 Interpretation Act 1999 has been
reiterated.
o “s 5 makes text and purpose the key drivers of statutory interpretation. Even if the text
has been determined, we must always cross-check that understanding against purpose.
And in order to determine that purpose, we can have regard to immediate and general
legislative surroundings/ texts/ objectives outside of the statute that help inform us as
to purpose
• Court can only interpret words that are there, and can only read the text in light of the purpose
as determined in the eyes and intentions of Parliament
Exercise for Interpretation:
1. Focus on text element first, see which provisions are relevant
2. Look at context
3. Also seek out Parliament’s purpose of particular statute
L4
Downloaded by Emma Grant ()
, lOMoARcPSD|13097948
• Always start with text for stat interpretation and then analyse this in light of the purpose of the
text
Six Step Process for Statutory Interpretation question
1. What provisions do I need to look at for interpretation
2. What in particular in the above provision(s) need interpretation? Focus on the issues, not the
non-issues
3. Determine the purpose of the relevant statutory provision. What did Parliament intend to
accomplish through this provision?
o Purpose, surrounding provisions in an enactment, contextual indicators
o Use these purposes to derive a “reasoned purpose statement”
4. Actually interpret what the provision means, in light of the derived purpose, using toolkit of
statutory interpretation
o To interpret the text here, we must always interpret in light of the derived purpose.
This is the purposive approach and must be consistent with what Parliament has said
5. Apply the meaning of the provision(s) to the factual scenario
6. Reach a reasoned conclusion
Exercise: Topic P in Tutorial Book
1. What is the purpose of this Act? Construct a “reasoned purpose statement”
• S 3, purpose statement: to address the anti-social effects of using loud noise emitting devices in
or near sporting venues”
• Long title: “to control the use of musical instruments”
• Structure of the Act demonstrates it is a penal statute, which seeks to punish particular
behaviour
• Statement of the Minister who introduced the Bill/ background context or purpose: the Act was
mainly enacted to recognise the health implications of musical instruments, namely
transmission of germs from the sharing of blown instruments and potential hearing damage
from prolonged exposure to noise
2. Write out a “reasoned purpose statement”, underlining the:
a. Purpose of the Act
b. How you reached that conclusion of its purpose/ why do you say that is the purpose?
Where is their supporting evidence to this?
L5
Approaching a statutory interpretation question
1. What provisions/ parts need interpretation
2. What is the issue at hand
3. Use available indicators of context to derive a “reasoned purpose statement”
Exercise in class
Downloaded by Emma Grant ()
LAWS101 Summary for entire course
Legal System: Legal Method and Institutions (University of Canterbury)
Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university
Downloaded by Emma Grant ()
, lOMoARcPSD|13097948
L1
Statutory Interpretation
• First week looking at statutes as a source of law and why its needed
• 3 cornerstones of statutes: text, purpose, and context
• Integrating the 3 elements in practical problem-based reasoning
• Authoritative international law can be in foreign languages, eg Te Reo and English
• Key provisions of NZBORA that deal with statutes on human rights
• Exam Preparations using past papers
Tutorials for the term
1. W/c 26 July discussion only
2. W/c 9 August group feedback
3. W/c 23 August individual feedback
• Scenarios that will require application of statutory interpretation principles and techniques
• Test Tues 14 Sept: similar to work in tutorials, interpreting legislation
L2
Statutes as a source of law
Common Law, Statute Law, Customary Law (an earlier state of legal affairs)
• Common law and statute law interact with one another. Eg, Parliament can seek to codify some
aspect of common/ case law ie, Contractual Remedies Act 1979
• There also common law principles about what a statute means. Judges can develop their
interpretations on what statutes mean
• Statute law is dominant source of law in NZ
o Institutionally, Parliament is the supreme law making body of NZ. Where the law by
statutes conflicts with common/ case law, statute law trumps common law
o Functionally, statutes have whittled away the effect of common law. Eg, Crimes Act
1961 codified and replaced the common law framework of offences and crimes
• Statute created by Parliament is deliberate and prospective, cf common law where law is
created only when prompted by adversarial courts
o Statutes—> Parliament
o Statutory Regulation—> Executive/ delegated legislation
o By-laws—> Local Council/ Govts
• With stat. int., we always look at what Parliament intended
What is statutory interpretation?
• Method by which legal professionals read, analyse, and apply (text, purpose, context) legislation
to give proper effect to the parliamentary purpose behind that legislation
o Read/ Text: understand how it’s written, identify relevant parts of the text of the statute
o Analyse/ Context: understanding the words of the statute in context, by reference to
contextual clues, eg looking at debates of the house
o Apply/ Purpose: giving effect to proper purpose behind that legislation, as intended by
Parliament. This is why we do stat. int.
• NZ now follows the purposive approach in modern times, developing from the historic
approaches (literal rule, golden rule, mischief rule)
• Stat. Int. is a subset of the wider topic of “Statute Law”
Downloaded by Emma Grant ()
, lOMoARcPSD|13097948
Literal Rule Interpretation
• Words should be given their ordinary meaning
• Outside contextual indicators of purpose have no role to play in interpreting
• Can lead to thwarting clear Parliamentary intention behind an enactment because of the way
the words have been drafted, eg Whiteley v Chappell (1868)
• Though NZ has moved to the modern approach that considers context, nevertheless if the words
are clear and unambiguous provided the purpose of the statute adds up to the words, then that
is enough and the literal rule can hold, eg Auckland City Council v Glaucina
Golden Rule Interpretation
• Can look beyond ordinary meaning of the words to prevent interpretations which are absurd or
ambiguous, but no further
• Look to purpose to make the provision along the lines of what was originally intended for it
Mischief Rule of Interpretation
• Most similar to the modern purposive approach
• This rule has its genesis from the Heydon case: stat. int. should consider four matters:
1. State of existing common law
2. “Mischief” or “defect” within the state of law
3. “Remedy” Parliament sought to apply to cure the defect
4. True reason behind the imposition of that remedy
• Has regard for purpose but is limited because there is a focus on defect and fixing something.
Sometimes there isn’t something to fix when enacting law, eg AI law
L3
Purposive Approach:
• Captured in the Interpretation Act 1999, s 5(1)
o “the meaning of an enactment must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its
purpose”
o Parliament codified this approach into statute, but it had been around for some time
• In the Fonterra 2007 case, the purposive approach from s 5 Interpretation Act 1999 has been
reiterated.
o “s 5 makes text and purpose the key drivers of statutory interpretation. Even if the text
has been determined, we must always cross-check that understanding against purpose.
And in order to determine that purpose, we can have regard to immediate and general
legislative surroundings/ texts/ objectives outside of the statute that help inform us as
to purpose
• Court can only interpret words that are there, and can only read the text in light of the purpose
as determined in the eyes and intentions of Parliament
Exercise for Interpretation:
1. Focus on text element first, see which provisions are relevant
2. Look at context
3. Also seek out Parliament’s purpose of particular statute
L4
Downloaded by Emma Grant ()
, lOMoARcPSD|13097948
• Always start with text for stat interpretation and then analyse this in light of the purpose of the
text
Six Step Process for Statutory Interpretation question
1. What provisions do I need to look at for interpretation
2. What in particular in the above provision(s) need interpretation? Focus on the issues, not the
non-issues
3. Determine the purpose of the relevant statutory provision. What did Parliament intend to
accomplish through this provision?
o Purpose, surrounding provisions in an enactment, contextual indicators
o Use these purposes to derive a “reasoned purpose statement”
4. Actually interpret what the provision means, in light of the derived purpose, using toolkit of
statutory interpretation
o To interpret the text here, we must always interpret in light of the derived purpose.
This is the purposive approach and must be consistent with what Parliament has said
5. Apply the meaning of the provision(s) to the factual scenario
6. Reach a reasoned conclusion
Exercise: Topic P in Tutorial Book
1. What is the purpose of this Act? Construct a “reasoned purpose statement”
• S 3, purpose statement: to address the anti-social effects of using loud noise emitting devices in
or near sporting venues”
• Long title: “to control the use of musical instruments”
• Structure of the Act demonstrates it is a penal statute, which seeks to punish particular
behaviour
• Statement of the Minister who introduced the Bill/ background context or purpose: the Act was
mainly enacted to recognise the health implications of musical instruments, namely
transmission of germs from the sharing of blown instruments and potential hearing damage
from prolonged exposure to noise
2. Write out a “reasoned purpose statement”, underlining the:
a. Purpose of the Act
b. How you reached that conclusion of its purpose/ why do you say that is the purpose?
Where is their supporting evidence to this?
L5
Approaching a statutory interpretation question
1. What provisions/ parts need interpretation
2. What is the issue at hand
3. Use available indicators of context to derive a “reasoned purpose statement”
Exercise in class
Downloaded by Emma Grant ()
