What has the High Court told us about interpretation in 2024? Two things stand out. First are the comments by Edelman J in Harvey on extrinsic materials1. Second is the clarification in SkyCity of how we are to read statutory definitions2. Several other cases emphasise basic themes – text>context>purpose, coherence and objectivity3; and the need to avoid what is called ‘legal fundamentalism’4. Elsewhere, niche areas including the impact of human rights statutes and the correct approach to legislative codes are covered5. But nothing the High Court said in 2024 moved the dial much on statutory interpretation. The principles which run the system are stable, reliable and known. Past is the time when statutory interpretation could be called a ‘fashion industry’6. High Court judges these days all wear the same robes when it comes to the principles applied in reading statutes.
Gordon Brysland – Tax Counsel Network gordon.brysland@ato.gov.au
See here for the official PDF of Episode 115 of interpretation NOW!
Thanks – Agnes Liu, Tharindra Yapa, Cheryl D’Amico & Brittany Doherty.
Footnotes:
1 Harvey [2024] HCA 1 [113-116]; E105 (summary), E106 (whole episode).
2 SkyCity [2024] HCA 37 [32-33] joint judgment of the court; E114.
3 HBSY [2024] HCA 35 [53, 157] Gageler CJ & Jagot J respectively; E114.
4 Greylag [2024] HCA 21 [107, 114-117] Edelman J; E111 (editorial).
5 Smith [2024] HCA 32, E113; Dayney [2024] HCA 22, E110.
6 Spigelman From Text to Context (2007) 81 ALJ 322 (322).