This conundrum is sometimes resolved by a compromise expressed in the
golden rule of interpretation. It applies where one reading of a statute produces
a result that is self contradictory or absurd. This is taken to indicate that the
legislature intended an alternative construction which is reasonably available,
even though the first meaning is closer to the natural or literal meaning.
404
A classic statement of the golden rule was made by Lord Wensleydale, with
whose name it is often associated. First, His Lordship propounded the literal
rule, asserting a court must adhere to "the grammatical and ordinary sense of
the words”.
405
Then followed the qualification prescribed by the golden rule. A
court can depart from the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words if
adhering to them "would lead to some absurdity, or some repugnance or
inconsistency with the rest of the instrument”.
406
In cases such as these, the
rule provides, a court can modify "the grammatical and ordinary sense of the
words" but only so as "to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency,” and "no
further”.
407
In this way Lord Wensleydale's golden rule is a qualification to the literal rule
because it operates to alter the literal meaning of an Act. It involves a
modification of the words of an Act, by qualification and possibly extension,
where their ordinary meaning creates an absurdity or inconsistency. From the
earlier discussion of ambiguity in we can see that the golden rule involves
ambiguity of implication.
408
To apply the golden rule one reads an implied
qualification or extension into the provision to avoid the absurdity or
inconsistency.
Policy Rule
The most basic rule is the policy rule. This has a common law version, the
mischief rule. In some jurisdictions there are also statutory versions of the
policy rule. Both of these are discussed earlier.
409
Words
Introduction
There are several rules or maxims governing the interpretation of words. These
concern the use of popular words in their ordinary sense, the use of technical
404
Cooper Brookes v FCT (1981) 147 CLR 297, 319-321, per Mason and Wilson JJ
405
Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HLC 61, 106
406
Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HLC 61, 106
407
Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HLC 61, 106 per Lord Wensleydale
408
Chapter 10 Classifying Meanings
409
Chapter 12 Policy
 |
 |
 |