Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · Interpretation of Statutes

A statute provides: 'The Board shall, within 30 days of receiving an application, grant or refuse the licence.' The Board decides an application on the 35th day. The statute is silent on the consequence of delay. Applying the distinction between mandatory and directory provisions, what is the most likely position?

The decision is likely valid because the time limit is directory. Where a statute prescribes a time but states no consequence for delay, courts look at the object and effect, and do not treat 'shall' as conclusive. Invalidating the decision would cause injustice, so mere delay does not void it.

  1. AThe decision is always void because any time limit is automatically mandatory
  2. BThe decision is always valid because time limits are never enforceable
  3. CThe decision is valid, as the time limit is ordinarily directory when no consequence of non-compliance is stated and no serious public inconvenience or injustice resultsCorrect
  4. DThe decision is void only because the word 'shall' is used, whatever the context

Explanation

Courts look at the scheme, object and consequences, not only the word 'shall'. Where a procedural time limit carries no stated penalty for delay and invalidating the act would cause injustice, it is treated as directory. Option 3 is wrong because 'shall' does not conclusively make a provision mandatory.

Did you get it right without looking?

One question tells you little. A timed set on Interpretation of Statutes shows your real accuracy, how long you take and where you lose marks.

Practise Interpretation of StatutesFree diagnostic mock

More Interpretation of Statutes questions