Skip to content

CA Intermediate · Corporate and Other Laws · Interpretation of Statutes

An Act passed in 2015 says that a notice 'shall be sent by registered post'. The Act lays down no consequence for non-compliance, and the purpose is to ensure the recipient gets a chance to respond. A department sent a notice by speed post, and the recipient received it and replied in time. Under the usual rules distinguishing mandatory and directory provisions, what is the likely position?

The notice is likely valid because the provision can be treated as directory. The word 'shall' is not conclusive; courts examine the object and consequences. Here the purpose of giving the recipient a chance to respond was met, there was no prejudice and the Act prescribes no invalidity.

  1. AThe notice is void because 'shall' is always mandatory
  2. BThe notice is valid because 'shall' is always read as 'may'
  3. CThe notice is void because speed post is a different mode and strict compliance is always required
  4. DThe notice is likely valid as the provision may be treated as directory, since the purpose was achieved and no consequence is prescribedCorrect

Explanation

Courts look at the scheme, object and consequences, not just the word 'shall'. Where the object is met without prejudice and no penalty or invalidity is stated, substantial compliance may suffice and the provision is directory. Options claiming 'shall' is always mandatory, or always means 'may', are wrong because the word is not conclusive either way.

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