Arrotex Pharmaceuticals v Minister [2024] FCA 522
This case is interesting for Rofe J’s description (at [46]) of the central passage in SZTAL as the ‘axiomatic approach’ to interpretation6. There, the High Court said that, if the ordinary meaning ‘is not consistent with the statutory purpose, [it] must be rejected’.
This principle has its roots in s 15AA. It is self-evidently correct, and therefore ‘axiomatic’, for 3 reasons. First, s 15AA is a command of parliament. Second, it is given explanation and emphasis by the High Court. Third, it is actively applied in all courts, as this case shows7. iTip – our system axiomatically rejects literalism (as well as what Edelman J calls ‘textual fundamentalism’8) as the focus of its investigation9.
This principle is from Episode 110 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
6 SZTAL v Minister [2017] HCA 34 [14] plurality, cf Gageler J [35-40].
7 McLennan [2023] FCAFC 191 [18], Sydney Seaplanes [2021] NSWCA 204 [29].
8 Greylag [2024] HCA 21 [107, 114-117], to be discussed in Episode 111.
9 A2 [2019] HCA 35 [32], Basten & Gvozdenovic (2022) 96 ALJ 392 (394).