Commissioner v CLP Power HK [2017] HKCFA 18
It’s not every day that a Hong Kong case says something about our tax laws3. This court (at [35]) says that the principles of interpretation apply just as much to tax laws as to other statutes. Kirby J in our High Court is quoted for 2 propositions. First, it is …
Re Amerind Pty Ltd [2017] VSC 127
Precedent compels consistency between courts in the same system. Courts in different systems (and co-ordinate courts in the same system) are not strictly bound by decisions of the other. But they are expected to be consistent unless convinced the other is ‘plainly wrong’6. This case (at [293]) underlines the public interest…
Ryde v PIA (No 4) [2017] NSWSC 436
This case (at [93]) re-works themes in Episode 4. Regs usually cannot ‘be taken into account’ when interpreting the Act, but an exception is where the regs and statute ‘form part of a legislative scheme’ (as here). Ticking the ‘scheme’ box, however, provokes further questions – (A) how are the regs to …
Lockwood v Ecoliv Buildings [2017] VSC 109
Episodes 1 & 7 deal with when practical outcomes support one construction over another. This case (at [96-97]) quotes Project Blue Sky, then observes that courts ‘frequently [refer] to the consequences of competing statutory interpretations to determine which … best suits the purpose of an Act’.
Zammit J said that ‘interpretation by …
Privacy Commissioner v Telstra [2017] FCAFC 4
Should you work out the meaning of a statutory definition in isolation before reading it into the text of the provision being looked at? The answer given by the courts is a firm ‘no’. Statutory definitions are only aids to construction, not substantive law2. Divorcing a definition from its substantive context …
Benjamin v FCT [2017] AATA 39
The use of headings for interpretational purposes has always been difficult5. Historically, Part and Division headings formed part of the Act and could not be ignored. They could constrain general provisions or help resolve ambiguity6, but naturally gave way to clear language in provisions.
Section headings, however, were only part …
Minister v Kumar [2017] HCA 11
If an Act requires or allows a thing to be done and the deadline is a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, s 36(2) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 allows the thing to be done on the next business day. Kumar was eligible to apply for a 572 visa if he held a 485 visa …
WAPC v Southregal Pty Ltd [2017] HCA 7
A key
presumption is
that all words in a statute are
to be given meaning and effect10. Legislation isn’t always perfect, however,
and parliament is sometimes guilty
of surplusage or tautology11. In these situations, the presumption doesn’t permit strained readings at odds with statutory
purpose.
In this case, …
UNSW Global v CCSR [2016] NSWSC 1852
Sometimes the ordinary, literal meaning of a provision will not remedy the mischief it was meant to address, and you’ll need to look for an alternative reading of the text3. However, White J (at [47-50]) reminds us to be careful not to adopt a position that addresses the mischief parliament had …
Narrier v WA [2016] FCA 1519
Episode 6 warns us against simplistic generalisations about statutory policy. This case (at [1092-1095]) repeats what the High Court said in Alcan6 about the dangers of fixing on the general revenue-raising purpose of tax laws as a basis for interpretation.
The question is how far legislation goes in pursuit of revenue raising, once …
