SkyCity Adelaide v Treasurer [2024] HCA 37
30 years ago, the High Court said it ‘would be quite circular to construe the words of a definition by reference to the term defined’5. Other courts saw this as out-of-step with how we are to read statutes6.
In SkyCity, the court said (at [32]) there is no inflexible rule here and the principle involved is ‘more nuanced’. The term defined is part of the context but the ‘purpose of a definition is to fix or to clarify the meaning of the defined term’. Definitions are construed in the context of the substantive provision according to its ‘natural and ordinary meaning’ unless clearly otherwise required7. This case clears up longstanding misunderstandings on a recurring issue8.
This principle is from Episode 114 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
5 Shin Kobe Maru (1994) 181 CLR 404 (419), Wacal (1978) 140 CLR 503 (507).
6 Singh [2020] NSWCA 152 [129-130], Auctus [2021] FCAFC 39 [68].
7 PMT Partners (1995) 184 CLR 301 (310) quoted.
8 Episode 1 looked at this, then followed Episodes 11, 46, 61, 64, 71, 89 & 108.