Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · Interpretation of Statutes

A statute reads: 'Every person who, by words or conduct, deceives another shall be punished.' A court notes that, read literally, the provision yields an absurd outcome unrelated to Parliament's purpose, since it would punish harmless theatrical performances. Which approach is the court most likely to adopt?

The court is likely to use the mischief rule or purposive construction. When a literal reading leads to absurdity inconsistent with the legislative object, courts interpret the words to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy, giving effect to Parliament's intention without rewriting the statute.

  1. AApply the literal rule rigidly because courts must never depart from the plain words
  2. BStrike down the provision on the ground that it is ambiguous
  3. CUse the mischief rule or purposive construction to avoid the absurdity and give effect to the intended objectCorrect
  4. DIgnore the text entirely and substitute its own policy view

Explanation

Where literal reading leads to absurdity or defeats the object, courts may adopt a purposive or mischief-based construction to advance the legislative intent. This is not a licence to ignore the text or substitute policy. Ambiguity alone does not invalidate a statute, and rigid literalism is not required.

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