LAWS1010 Legal System and Method I And Management
Questions:
Question 1
What is the full citation for the Engineers Case?
Question 2
Prepare a case brief of the Engineers Case.
Question 3
Provide the full citation or references for 5 journal articles that comment on the Engineers Case
Question 4
Using CaseBase or Austlii cite 4 cases that use or mention the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) noting the pinpoints in the citation of the cases
Question 5
Explain the following using specific case law examples:
- Literal Rule
- Golden Rule
- Purposive Rule
- Mischief Rule
Which of these rules was used in the Engineers Case to interpret the legislation in question? Explain briefly how the courts dealt with the issue of interpretation.
Answers:
Question 1
The full citation of the Engineers case is Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129.
Question 2
The Engineers case was a landmark decision given on August 31st, 1920 by the High Court of Australia. In this case, the key issue was related to the power of the Commonwealth as per section 51(xxv) of the Australian Constitution. However, the same was not confined to this question alone and was used as an opportunity of roaming broadly over the constitutional interpretations. This case was regarded as the most significant cases to have decided by the High Court of Australia and swept away the previous doctrines of reserved state powers and implied intergovernmental immunities, which made way for basic changes in the nature of federalism in the nation.
This case was born was a claim was filed by the union of engineers with Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration for the award which was related to 844 employers across the nation. The question which was related was whether the commonwealth law which was made under the arbitration and conciliation power regarding the industrial disputes, could the quoted section authorising the award being made, to be binding on the three governmental employers of Western Australia. The states attempted to rely upon their immunity from the control of commonwealth regarding the state trading. It was held that the reserved state powers doctrine could never displace the general principles regarding the construction, and the same had to be applied for providing the implied or the expressed meaning. The key rule of interpretation is that the statute has to be expounded based on the intention of the Parliament. And this has to be determined by examining the language which was used in the statute. Thus, there was a need to determine the meaning of language in natural and ordinary sense.
Question3
- Evans, M. (2012). Engineers: The case that changed Australian constitutional history. Journal of Constitutional History (Giornale di Storia Costituzionale), 24, 65.
- Selway, B. (2003). The Australian single law area. Monash UL Rev., 29, 30.
- Spaull, A. (1987). The state school teachers decision (High Court 1929) revisited. Australian Journal of Education, 31(3), 236-251.
- Fazal, M. A. (1990). Devolution or Federal Option: An Appropriate Response to Nationalist Aspirations within the British Isles. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 32(3), 309-327.
- Brennan, S., & Davis, M. (2014). Koowarta: constitutional landmark, transition point or missed opportunity?. Griffith Law Review, 23(1), 79-91.
Question 4
- Australand Corporation (Qld) P/L v Johnson & Ors[2007] QCA 302: Section 8 of Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
- Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Meredith[2007] NSWCA 354: Sections 2, 28A, 29, and 40 of Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
- IOOF Holdings Limited v Commissioner of Taxation[2014] FCAFC 91: Sections 2, and 7 of Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
- Scope Data Systems Pty Ltd v David Goman as Representative of the Partnership BDO Nelson Parkhill[2007] NSWSC 278: Section 29 of Acts Interpretation Act 1901.
Question 5
When an Act is passed by the Parliament, it becomes the duty of the court to apply the statue in the specific cases. Often this results in difficulties, particularly when the facts of the case are not what the Parliament envisioned; or in such cases where these are drafting errors or presence of ambiguity in the statue. Certain rules have been developed by the courts for assisting the judges in interpretation of the statutes. These include the literal rule, the golden rule, mischief rule, and the purposive approach.
Literal Rule
As per the literal rule of statutory interpretation, the wordings of the statute have to be given their ordinary or literal meaning; and in doing so, the judges do not put a gloss on words or even attempt to make sense of the statute. This is the very first rule which has to be applied by the judges for the purpose of interpreting the statutes. In the case of R v Harris (1836) 7 C & P 446, the defendant bit the nose of the victim. Under the statute, it was an offence to wound or stab cut. It was held by the court that as per the literal rule, biting could not be deemed to come in the meaning of wound or stab cut, since these words had been implied as an instrument was required to be used. As a result of this, the conviction of the defendant was quashed.
However, when it comes to the literal rules, there can be a disagreement upon what is to be deemed as natural or ordinary meaning. R v Maginnis [1987] AC 303 was a case in which the defendant had been charged with controlled drug’s possession with the intent of supply to another person. In his car, a pack worth £500 cannabis was found. It was claimed by the defendant that the drugs belonged to his friend, who was set to pick up the same later on. It was ruled by the trial judge that his action in handing the drugs to friend showed supply. Pleading guilty, the defendant appealed. The conviction was quashed by the Court of Appeal, which was later on reinstated by the House of Lords. The term supply had been interpreted through the literal rule, on which dissenting remarks were given by Lord Goff and the meaning given by the other judges to the term supply could not be given by him in ordinary speech.
Anther problem with the literal rule of interpretation is that it results in loopholes being created in the law. In Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394, flick knifes were displayed at the shop window with a price tag and it was a criminal offence to offer flick knives for sale. The conviction of the defendant was caused due to the goods on display in shops being deemed as invitation to treat, instead of an offer. This was done by applying literal rule of statutory interpretation. A similar ruling was given in Partridge v Crittenden (1968) 2 All ER 421.
These rules also result in injustice being caused as was seen in London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman [1946] AC 278. In this case, while oiling the track, the railway worker was killed. As per the statute, the compensation had to be paid only for such deaths which were caused while repairing or relaying the track and oiling fell in none of these categories. The widow was thus entitled to nothing. Even though the result was harsh, the golden rule could not be applied as the meaning was not absurd; the mischief rule could also not be applied as there was lack of ambiguity in the words. The other shortfalls of this theory include that it creates awkward precedents as a result of which parliamentary time is required to correct them; undermines the confidence of public in law; and fails in recognising the limitations and/or complexities of English language.
Golden Rule
The next rule which is used for the purpose of statutory interpretation is the golden rule which is applied in such cases where the application of the previous rule results in absurd results. In such cases, the secondary meaning is applied by the courts as was seen in River Wear Commissioners v Adamson (1876-77) L.R. 2 App CAS 743. There are a number of cases in which this rule had been applied. For instance, in R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367, the defendant had been charged with bigamy under a particular statute. When the section of this statue was interpreted in a literal sense, the offence become impossible to be committed, as the civil law never recognised second marriage; and any attempt to marry in such situation could not be recognized as being a valid marriage. This led to the court applying golden rule and stated that the word marry had to be interpreted as going through a marriage ceremony, which led to the conviction of the defendant being upheld.
This case is a leading example of the benefits of this method, as this method helps in correcting the errors in drafting. It closes the loopholes, brings common sense in law, gives more just results, and helps in making the decisions which resonates the intention of the Parliament. However, even this method has its share of problems as the judges get the power of changing or adding meaning to statues, which make them law makers, and thus infringes upon the doctrine of separation of powers. Also, the judges get not power of intervening in pure injustice causes where there is a lack of absurdity.
Mischief Rule
The third rule used for the purposes of statutory interpretation is the mischief rule and this is the oldest rule used for this purpose. The case of Heydon's Case [1584] EWHC Exch J36 saw the birth of this principle. The scope of this rule was given in the case of Re Sussex Peerage (1844) 11 Cl & Fin 85, where it was held that this rule had to be applied only when the statute was ambiguous. As per this rule, the role of the court is to suppress the mischief which is covered in the Acts and advance remedies. It not only closes the loopholes of law, but also helps in developing and adapting the law based on the needed changes, as was seen in Royal College of Nursing v DHSS [1981] 2 WLR 279.
Smith v Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830 is one of the cases in which this rule had been applied. This was the case where the defendants, who were prostitutes, had been charged under certain statute as per which it was an offence to solicit in public places. Even though the prostitutes were soliciting in the private premises, they could be seen through balconies and windows as they were soliciting from there, by the public. The mischief rule was applied in this case and it was held that the activities of defendants were mischief in context of the act, which made them liable, which would not have been the case, had the literal interpretation rule had been applied as then they would have been treated to be working in private place. This case is not only an example of the application of the mischief rule, but also an example of the problems associated with it. This rule creates crime after the event takes place, which violates the rule of law; it again gives the law making power to the judges beating the separation of powers; and the morality of judges and views can be brought in the cases, which can be deemed as a prejudice.
Purposive Approach
The last rule which is used for the purpose of statutory interpretation is the purposive approach to statutory interpretation. This approach is used by the European Court of Justice. The literal rule cannot be adopted in the European Courts due to the different languages used in operation and translation which cannot be deemed as an exact science. So, whenever a piece of law is to be analysed, the domestic judges apply this approach. In Maunsell v Olins [1975] AC 373, the purposive approach was explained by Lord Simon who stated that the very first task for construction by the court was to put themselves in the shoes of draftsman and to consider the knowledge of such person. More importantly, there was a need to consider the statutory objective which such person had and all these factors had to be processed by the courts to ascertain the meaning of the statutory language. Hence, under this approach, the purpose of the statute is looked at before the words of the statute are interpreted. Thus, it is a very flexible approach which gives the judges a greater scope of developing the law, which is in line with the intentions of the Parliament. It uses the extrinsic aids in a more ready manner for assisting in finding these intentions of the Parliament.
An example where this case was used is the case of Pepper v Hart [1992] 3 WLR 1032, in which the decision had to taken by the House of Lords on the teacher of private school being required to pay tax on perk which they got as reduced school fees. The statement made by Hansard was relied upon by the teacher on this situation, where it was stated that the tax would not be payable. Earlier, the courts could not refer to the Hansard statement, as was seen in Davis v Johnson [1978] 2 WLR 553 but in this case, the House of Lords departed from the previous ruling and adopted the purposive approach for interpretation and held that Hansard could be referred by the teachers, which meant that the teachers were not required to pay taxes on the perks received.
As is with the other approaches, this approach too has its shares of advantages and disadvantages. The shortfalls include the judges being given too much power resulting in violation of separation of powers, possibility of judicial bias, and assumptions regarding intention of Parliament and ignoring the fact that Parliament is divided on party lines. However, it allows for judges to cope with the situations which could not be foreseen by the Parliament, gives a flexible approach, and also helps in making reference to Hansard which clarifies upon the intentions of the parties.
Engineers Case
In the Engineers case, the High Court relied upon the settled rules of construction where the words were given natural meaning. The judicial inquiry regarding the meaning of the constitution had to be read in a natural manner and based on the situation, in which the same had been made, which had to be accompanied by the knowledge of combined fabric of common law. The emphasis over the strict reading of constitution meant that the court was limited in material and that reliance had to be placed upon the interpretation of such terms. In this regard, remarks were given by Lord Haldane over golden rule where he stated that there was a need to exclude other consideration saves for the state of law which had been when the statue was passed. As a result of this, the only safe course was to read the language of statute in the natural sense. Through a natural reading, clear, consistent and definite decisions were given which required the constitution to be interpreted in the same manner as would be done for any other act of the Parliament.
References
Brennan S, and Davis M, ‘Koowarta: constitutional landmark, transition point or missed opportunity?’ 23 (2014) Griffith Law Review.
Evans M, ‘Engineers: The case that changed Australian constitutional history’ 24 Journal of Constitutional History.
Fazal MA, ‘Devolution or Federal Option: An Appropriate Response to Nationalist Aspirations within the British Isles’ (1990) 32 Journal of the Indian Law Institute.
Patapan H, ‘Politics of Interpretation’ (2000) 22 Sydney Law Review 249.
Selway B, ‘The Australian single law area’ (2003) 29, Monash UL Rev.
Spaull A, ‘The state school teachers decision (High Court 1929) revisited’ (1987) 31 Australian Journal of Education.
Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129
Australand Corporation (Qld) P/L v Johnson & Ors [2007] QCA 302
Davis v Johnson [1978] 2 WLR 553
Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Meredith [2007] NSWCA 354
Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394
Heydon's Case [1584] EWHC Exch J36
IOOF Holdings Limited v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCAFC 91
London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman [1946] AC 278
Maunsell v Olins [1975] AC 373
Partridge v Crittenden (1968) 2 All ER 421
Pepper v Hart [1992] 3 WLR 1032
R v Harris (1836) 7 C & P 446
R v Maginnis [1987] AC 303
R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367
Re Sussex Peerage (1844) 11 Cl & Fin 85
River Wear Commissioners v Adamson (1876-77) L.R. 2 App CAS 743
Scope Data Systems Pty Ltd v David Goman as Representative of the Partnership BDO Nelson Parkhill [2007] NSWSC 278
Smith v Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830
Acts Interpretation Act, 1901 (Cth)
Australia Constitution Act, 1900 (Cth)
Austlii, Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd ("Engineers' case") [1920] HCA 54; (1920) 28 CLR 129 (31 August 1920) (2017) <https://www7.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1920/54.html>
E-Law Resources, ‘Statutory interpretation’ (2017) <https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Statutory-interpretation.php>
E-Law Resources, ‘The Golden Rule of Statutory Interpretation’ (2017) <https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Golden-rule.php
E-Law Resources, ‘The Literal Rule of Statutory Interpretation’ (2017) <https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Literal-rule.php>
E-Law Resources, ‘The Mischief Rule of Statutory Interpretation’ (2017) <https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Mischief-rule.php>
E-Law Resources, ‘The Purposive Approach to Statutory Interpretation’ (2017) <https://e-lawresources.co.uk/Purposive-approach.php>
