Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · Interpretation of Statutes

A statute reads: 'Every person who sells liquor, wine or beer without licence shall be punished.' A shopkeeper sold whisky without licence and argued that whisky is not named. Another provision in the same statute defines 'liquor' as including spirits. The court looked at the surrounding words and the definition to conclude whisky was covered. Which statement best captures the correct approach?

Whisky is covered. A definition in the statute, which includes spirits within liquor, applies throughout the Act unless the context requires otherwise, and the associated words support that reading. The court therefore does not confine the penal provision to the named items alone.

  1. AThe court must confine the provision to the three named items by expressio unius
  2. BThe court may read the word 'liquor' in light of the statute's definition and the associated words, since the interpretation clause governs unless the context requires otherwise, so whisky as a spirit is coveredCorrect
  3. CThe court must ignore the definition clause because it is in a different section
  4. DThe court must hold the provision void for vagueness

Explanation

A definition section applies throughout the statute unless the context otherwise requires, and associated words help show the meaning. Since liquor includes spirits, whisky falls within it. Option A is wrong because liquor is itself a general term covering whisky; the named items do not create an exhaustive list.

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