Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · Interpretation of Statutes

A taxing provision in an old Act imposes a levy on 'vehicles'. It is silent on e-scooters, which did not exist when the Act was passed. The department seeks to levy the tax on e-scooters. Which principle of interpretation most directly supports the department's argument that the Act can apply to later inventions, subject to the words fitting?

The updating construction, also called the always-speaking approach, supports the department. General words in an Act can apply to later inventions that fit within their language, although a levy is still interpreted strictly, so the e-scooter must fairly fall within the word vehicles.

  1. AContemporanea expositio, which freezes the meaning to what was understood at enactment
  2. BDoctrine of updating construction (an always-speaking statute), under which general words can be applied to new things within their scope, though a charging provision is still read strictlyCorrect
  3. CEjusdem generis, which restricts the word to older vehicles
  4. DCasus omissus, under which the court fills any gap in a taxing Act

Explanation

The 'always speaking' or updating construction allows general words to cover new developments when they fall within the language. Contemporanea expositio looks to the original understanding and works against the department. Casus omissus is wrong because courts do not supply omissions in a taxing statute.

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