Skip to content

CS Executive · Jurisprudence, Interpretation and General Laws · Interpretation of Statutes

A statute uses words that are clear and unambiguous, and the result of applying them is plain though somewhat harsh on a trader. Under the literal rule, which approach should the court follow?

The court should give the words their natural and ordinary meaning, even if the result is harsh. Under the literal rule, clear and unambiguous language is applied as written, and courts do not substitute a milder meaning or add words to avoid hardship.

  1. AGive the words their natural and ordinary meaning, whatever the consequenceCorrect
  2. BSubstitute a milder meaning so that the trader is not harmed
  3. CLook first at the legislative debates to find a wider purpose
  4. DAdd words to the section to avoid the harshness

Explanation

The literal rule requires that where the words are clear, they be given their natural and ordinary meaning even if the result is harsh. Courts do not rewrite clear text to soften its effect. Substituting a milder meaning would be judicial legislation and is wrong.

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