how to understand an act of parliament
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
1/237
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
2/237
HOW TO UNDERSTANDAN ACT OF PARLIAMENT
Cavendish
PublishingLimited
CP
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
3/237
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
4/237
HOW TO UNDERSTANDAN ACT OF PARLIAMENT
D J Gifford PhD (Cantab)
John Salter MA (Oxon)
CavendishPublishingLimited
CP
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
5/237
First published in Great Britain 1996 by Cavendish Publishing Limited,The Glass House, Wharton Street, London WC1X 9PXTelephone: 0171-278 8000 Facsimile: 0171-278 8080
Kelandon Pty Ltd 1996
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, storedin a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, elec-
tronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without theprior permission of the publisher and copyright owner.
The right of Dr D J Gifford and John Salter to be identified as authors ofthis work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright,Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Any person who infringes the above in relation to this publication may beliable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
British Library Cataloguing-in Publication Data.
Gifford, Understanding an Act of Parliament.1. Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons Rules and2. Legislative bodies Great Britain 3. Parliamentary practice GreatBritainI. Title II. Salter328.4.1077
ISBN 1 85941 206 8
Printed and bound in Great Britain
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
6/237
v
There is a very real need today for people to know how to approach anunderstanding of the numerous Acts of Parliament and other forms of legislation
that affect so many aspects of their daily lives. The age in which we live is an ageof rapidly increasing governmental control. That control has extended into everywalk of life. For all of us there is legislation of one type or another that affects thethings we can do and controls how we can do them. From the broadcaster to themanufacturer, from the sales staff to the company secretary, there are Acts ofParliament and statutory instruments that must be complied with if penalties areto be avoided.
There was a time when only the lawyer had to know how to understand anAct of Parliament. That time has long since passed. Today there are many walksof life in which the knowledge of how to understand an Act of Parliament isessential. In the professional field the accountant, the architect, the engineer, the
chartered surveyor, the chief executive of a hospital or a geriatric complex, andthe town planner must have a good working knowledge of the special rules thatgovern the reading of legislation; they must know how to understand legislationand how to use it. In the commercial field this knowledge is of growingimportance for the landlord, the manager, the company secretary, the shoppingcentre manager, the developer, the estate agent and the builder. In the field ofgovernment this knowledge is perhaps most important of all and it is ofimportance not merely for those in the public service but for those in the creativefield of local government.
An Act of Parliament is not something that can be read like a book. That is notjust because the Act of Parliament is heavier reading, as indeed it usually is. It is
because over the years the law has developed special rules that govern thereading of the Act of Parliament. Every Act of Parliament must be read in thelight of those rules, and the person who attempts to read an Act of Parliamentwithout a working knowledge of the more important rules of interpretation mayfall into error. That error may be expensive.
The rules which govern the reading and interpretation of an Act of Parliamentalso govern the reading and understanding of legislation in all the other formsthat legislation takes today. They govern the reading and understanding of themaze of subordinate legislation whether made by central or local government or
by other statutory authorities. Such subordinate legislation is made today ingrowing profusion in the administration of an increasing number of statutes.
The object of this book is to explain the more important of the rules thatgovern the reading and understanding of legislation, and to do so as far aspossible in ordinary everyday language. The reader who studies and understandsthose rules will gain more from the reading of legislation whether reading an Actof Parliament or any other form of legislation. The reader will not, however,
become an expert in the science of interpreting legislation and must therefore
PREFACE
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
7/237
expect to have to turn to members of the legal profession for help in solving themany complications that arise in the course of modern legislation. The more
legislation grows the greater is the service which the legal profession can anddoes give to the community through its interpretation of the legislation andthrough its unravelling of the tangled legislative knots.
T C Beirne School of Law, D J Gifford
University of Queensland
Denton Hall, John Salter
5 Chancery Lane,
Cliffords Inn,London
How to Understand an Act of Parliament
vi
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
8/237
vii
Preface vTable of Cases xvii
Table of Statutes xxxviiGlossary xxxix
1 HOW AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT IS MADE 1What an Act of Parliament is 1How an Act of Parliament begins 1How the Act of Parliament is prepared 3How the Act is considered in Parliament 4How the Act of Parliament comes into force 6Acts obtained by fraud 6
2 THE SPECIAL RULES FOR UNDERSTANDING ACTS OFPARLIAMENT 7
Ambiguity in Acts of Parliament 7Judges criticisms of the drafting of Acts of Parliament 7Legislation by reference 10The need for special rules for the reading of Acts of Parliament 11
3 THE ELEMENTS OF AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT 13
Introduction 13The elements of an Act of Parliament 13
4 THE COAT OF ARMS AND THE REGNAL YEAR 15The form of the coat of arms and regnal year 15The effect of the coat of arms 15The regnal year 15
5 THE NUMBER OF THE ACT 17The nature of the number 17The form of the number 17The effect of the number 17
6 THE LONG TITLE OF THE ACT 19The form of the long title 19The long title as part of the Act 19Using the long title to find the meaning of the Act 20
CONTENTS
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
9/237
7 THE ENACTING WORDS 21The use of enacting words 21
The form of the enacting words 21The effect of the enacting words 22
8 THE SHORT TITLE 23The nature of the short title 23The place where the short title is to be found 23The use of the short title 23The legal effect of a short title 23
9 WHEN AN ACT COMES INTO FORCE 27The date on the Act of Parliament 27What the date on the Act of Parliament means 27The date on which the Act comes into force 27Bringing the Act into force on a later day 27Treating an Act as having been in force from a day before the date
on which it was passed 28The date on an Act reprinted after it has been amended 29
10 THE PREAMBLE 31
The nature of the preamble 31The preamble as part of the Act of Parliament 32The preamble when the meaning of the Act is clear 32The use of the preamble to find the meaning of a section 32
11 THE STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLE IN AN ACT 35What the statement of principle of an Act is 35The statement of principle is part of the Act 35Where to find the statement of principle 35How to use the statement of principle 35
Traps to using the statement of principle 35
12 SECTIONS, SUBSECTIONS AND PARAGRAPHS 37Sections 37Subsections 37Paragraphs 37The effect of the setting out of the Act in numbered sections,
subsections and paragraphs 38Conflicting sections in the one Act 38The way in which sections, subsections, paragraphs and
subparagraphs are referred to 39
How to Understand an Act of Parliament
viii
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
10/237
Contents
13 PARTS AND DIVISIONS 41The nature of parts and divisions 41
The effect of dividing an Act into parts and divisions 42
14 HEADINGS 43The use of headings 43The effect of headings when the meaning of an Act is clear 43The effect of headings when the meaning of a section is not plain 43The effect of a heading when there is only one section under it 44
15 MARGINAL NOTES 45
The nature of marginal notes 45The form of a marginal note 45Parliament and the marginal notes 45The dangers of marginal notes 46The problem as to whether marginal notes can be used to find
the meaning of an Act 47The value of marginal notes 47
16 DEFINITIONS 49The need for definitions 49
The definitions section 50The effect of definitions in an Act of Parliament 51Definitions which use mean or include or both 51Definitions in other Acts 53Dictionary definitions and technical terms 53
17 SCHEDULES 55The nature of a schedule 55Conflict between a section of an Act and a schedule to that Act 56Conflict between a preamble to an Act and a schedule to that Act 58
Conflict between a section of an Act and a form in a schedule to that Act 58
18 PROVISOS 61The nature of a proviso 61The form of a proviso 61The effect of a proviso 61Proviso inserted unnecessarily 61Words wrongly expressed as a proviso 62
ix
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
11/237
19 PUNCTUATION 63Acts of Parliament passed before 1850 63
Punctuation in Acts of Parliament passed in 1850 or later 63
20 THE MEANING OF WORDS NOT DEFINED IN THE ACT 65The difficulty of finding the meaning of words 65Where possible, a word is to be given a constant meaning
throughout the Act 65Words in an Act of Parliament have the meaning which they
bore at the date when the Act was passed 66Dictionary definitions 66Technical terms 67
21 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GENERAL RULES ANDTHE SPECIFIC RULES 69
The general rules 69Conflicts between the general and the specific rules 69
22 THE PLAIN MEANING RULE 71The names by which the plain meaning rule is known 71The effect of the plain meaning rule 71
The importance of the plain meaning rule 73The plain meaning rule cannot apply if the meaning is not plain 74The effect of definitions on the plain meaning rule 74
23 MANIFEST ABSURDITY AND INJUSTICE ARE TO BE AVOIDED 75The nature of the rule 75A warning about the rule 77
24 THE MISCHIEF RULE 79The nature of the rule 79The state of the law before the Act was passed 79The mischief or defect 80Ascertaining the mischief or defect 80The remedy Parliament has appointed 81The reason for the remedy 81Applying the rule 81The mischief cannot limit the meaning of plain words 81
How to Understand an Act of Parliament
x
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
12/237
Contents
25 THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT OF PARLIAMENT 83A section specifying the purposes of the Act 83
The Act is to be interpreted according to its object and intent 83The parliamentary intent should be effectuated, not defeated 83The meaning of intention in this context 84When the purposive approach is unavailable 85Finding the intention by necessary implication 86Caution must be exercised in interpreting by intention 87Intention is an unruly horse to ride 87
26 HANSARD 89The nature ofHansard 89The limited use ofHansard the common law previously allowed
for in the interpretation of an Act of Parliament 89Why the common law used to limit the use ofHansard to find the
meaning of an Act of Parliament 89The changed common law rule allowing the use ofHansard to
interpret an Act 90
27 USING OTHER MATERIAL FROM OUTSIDE AN ACT TOUNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THAT ACT 93
Reports by law reform commissions 93Reports by royal commissions and boards or committees of inquiry 93Explanations by government departments 93Planning policy guidelines 94Subordinate legislation 94Treaties and conventions 94
28 THE ACT MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE 95Words must be read in the light of the section as a whole 95A section must be read in the light of the Act as a whole 96
Limits to the use of this rule 97
29 EFFECT MUST BE GIVEN TO THE WHOLE ACT 99Words should not be discarded 99Sense should be made of a provision if possible 99Repetition and surplusage 99
30 OMISSIONS FROM THE ACT 101The rule as to things left out of the Act 101Implied terms 101
xi
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
13/237
31 MISTAKES IN AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT 103Common causes of mistakes in Acts of Parliament 103
The effect of a mistake as to the facts 103The effect of a mistake as to the law 104The effect of a mistake as to policy 104The effect of a drafters oversight 105Misprints 105The extent to which the courts will correct mistakes in Acts
of Parliament 106
32 THE CLASS RULE 107The nature of the class rule 107There must be a general word 108The general word must follow after a class of specific words 108There must be two or more specific words before the general word 109The name lawyers give to the class rule 110A court will not necessarily apply the class rule 110Excluding the class rule 110The class rule does not give guidance on the meaning of specific
words within the class 110
33 WORDS OF SIMILAR MEANING 111The nature of the rule 111The meaning of similar words when they are associated with
each other 111
34 EXPRESS INCLUSIONS AND IMPLIED EXCLUSIONS 113The effect of the rule 113The use of the rule in relation to definitions 113The rule must be applied with caution 113The name lawyers give the rule 114
35 INTERPRETING AN ACT IN THE LIGHT OF OTHER ACTS 115Acts which are related to the Act being considered 115Incorporating one Act into another 116The effect of Acts which are not related to the Act under consideration 116The effect of an Act repealing and replacing an earlier Act 117
36 ACTS INCONSISTENT WITH EACH OTHER 119Conflicts between different Acts of Parliament 119Conflict between a general and a specific Act 119
Other conflicts between Acts of Parliament 119Implied repeal 120
How to Understand an Act of Parliament
xii
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
14/237
Contents
37 NINE CLASSES OF ACTS OF PARLIAMENT 121Amending Acts 121
Codes 121Consolidating Acts 121Declaratory Acts 124Enabling Acts 124Explanatory Acts 125Remedial Acts 125Repealing Acts 126Validating Acts 126
38 ACTS WHICH ARE READ NARROWLY 129The kinds of Acts that are read narrowly 129Acts which impose a penalty 129Acts which empower arrest or detention 131Acts which create a tax, a rate or a charge 131Acts which affect vested rights 132The rights to be protected must be vested rights 133Taking property compulsorily 134Legal rules as to court procedure or as to law costs do not
create vested rights 135Acts affecting a fundamental principle of the common law 135
Acts that apply from before the date on which they were passed 136
39 ACTS THAT APPLY FROM BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICHTHEY WERE PASSED 137
The power of Parliament to make Acts that apply from a datebefore the date on which they were passed 137
The meaning of retrospective 137Taking away existing rights 137Providing penalties for things done before the coming into force
of the Act 138
Clear words are needed to make an Act operate from before the dateon which it was passed 139
Acts declaring the existing law are retrospective 141Acts relating to procedure or evidence are usually retrospective 141
40 THE AREA IN WHICH AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT OPERATES 143A British Act operates within the territories the people of which are
subject to the British Parliament 143Applying the principle to bodies under Parliament 143Defining the territories of Parliament 144
Parliament can make the Act operate beyond its territories 144
xiii
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
15/237
Applying the Act to foreigners beyond the territories 145Actions outside the territorial bounds affecting persons inside them 145
41 HOW ACTS OF PARLIAMENT AFFECT THE CROWN 147The meaning of the Crown 147When an Act of Parliament binds the Crown 147The extent of the Crown 147A warning as to whether the Crown is bound 148
42 HOW JUDICIAL DECISIONS AFFECT THE READING OF AN ACT 149Prior judicial decisions can be taken into consideration 149
Judicial decisions on principles of the common law 149Judicial decisions on the meaning of particular words and phrases 149Re-enactment after an Act has been interpreted by the courts 149Technical legal terms 151
43 SUBORDINATE LEGISLATION 153Subordinate legislation 153Subordinate legislation needs authorisation to be retrospective 154
44 INTERNATIONAL TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS 155
An Act giving effect to a treaty or convention is presumed tointend to fulfil Britains obligations 155
The treaty or convention can be examined to resolve ambiguityin the British Act 155
Words in the treaty or convention are to be given their ordinarymeanings 155
The purposive approach is to be applied 155Using a treaty or convention in two or more languages 156Extrinsic evidence may be used to determine whether
an international treaty or convention is relevant 157
The effect of conventions being more loosely worded than Acts 157The presumptions do not apply if the words being interpreted are
unambiguous 157The special rules for interpreting the European Communitys Access Act
and Directives 158
45 THE EUROPEAN LAW APPROACH 159Introduction 159Community treaties 159International treaties 161
How a Directive comes into force 162
How to Understand an Act of Parliament
xiv
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
16/237
Contents
The elements of a Directive 162The nature of the preamble 163
Drafting procedure 163Commission and Parliamentary Reports 164Incorporated and conflicting terms 164
46 EUROPEAN PRINCIPLES 167Unwritten principles 167Fundamental rights 167Effet utile 167Solidarity 168Human rights 169Equality of treatment 169Proportionality 169Legal certainty 170Legitimate expectations 170Retrospective effect 171Fairness 171
47 EUROPEAN CONSTRUCTION 173General principles 173Width of construction 174Literal meaning 175Uniformity 175Footnotes 176Plural 176Implication 176Amendments 177Decisions 177Direct effect 178Precedent 178
48 AIDS TO CONSTRUCTION 179Objectives 179Surrounding circumstances 179Social developments 180Preamble 180Minutes of Council meetings 180Opinions of officials 180Informal documents 180Negotiating documents 181Implemented legislation 181
Public international law 181
xv
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
17/237
Member State laws 182Laws of a third country 183
Languages 183Member State opinions 184
49 NOW READ ON 185Highlights and history 185Further reading on the rules for finding
the meaning of Acts of Parliament 187
Index 187
How to Understand an Act of Parliament
xvi
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
18/237
xvii
A
Abel v Lee (1871) LR 6 CP 365 .......................................................................................106
Abley v Dale (1851) 20 LJ CP 233 ....................................................................................78
Adoption Application (Non-Patrial: Breach of Procedures),Re [1993] Fam 125 .........................................................................................................143
Air-India v Wiggins [1980] 1 WLR 815.........................................................................145
Allen v Gulf Oil Refining Ltd [1981] AC 101...............................................................135
Alphacell Ltd v Woodward [1972] AC 824 .................................................................130
Amalia, The (1863) 1 Moore PC (NS) 471; [1863] 15 ER 778 .....................................145
Anderton v Ryan [1985] 2 WLR 968................................................................................85
Argyle Motors (Birkenhead) Ltd v Birkenhead Corpn [1975] AC 99, HL ...........7, 46
Argyll (Duke) v Inland Revenue Commissioners (1913) 109 LT 893......................119
Assam Rlys & Trading Co v Inland Revenue Commissioners[1935] AC 455..................................................................................................................90
Assheton Smith v Owen [1906] 1 Ch 179, CA...............................................................66
Associated Minerals Consolidated Ltd v Wyong ShireCouncil [1975] AC 538 .................................................................................................119
Associated Newspapers Group Ltd v Fleming [1973] AC 628 ..................................79
Attorney-General (Alberta) v Huggard Assets Ltd [1953] AC 420 .........................143
Attorney-General for Canada v Hallett & Carey Ltd [1952] AC 427................83, 133
Attorney-General v Associated Newspapers Ltd [1994] 2 AC 238, HL ...................71
Attorney-General v Great Eastern Rly (1879) 11 Ch D 449, CA...........................45, 46
Attorney-General v Jones [1990] 1 WLR 859, CA.........................................................85
Attorney-General v Lamplough (1873) 3 Ex D 214, CA........................................56, 58
Attorney-General v Leicester Corpn [1910] 2 Ch 359 ................................................110
Attorney-General v Theobold (1890) 24 QBD 556......................................................124
Auchterarder Presbytery v Lord Kinnoull (1839) 6 Cl & F 646;[1839] 7 ER 841 ................................................................................................................99
B
Bank of England v Vagliano Bros [1891] AC 107 .......................................................121
Barker v Edger [1898] AC 748 ..........................................................................................38
BBC Enterprises Ltd v Hi-Tech Xtravision Ltd [1990] Ch 609;[1991] 2 AC 327, CA .....................................................................................................102
Beese v Ashford Remand Centre (Governor) [1973] 1 WLR 1426...........................155
Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 ...................................................................................123
Black-Clawson International Ltd v Papierwerke Waldhof-AschaffenburgAG [1975] AC 591, HL...............................................................20, 79, 80, 84, 85, 87, 90
Blyth v Blyth (No 2) [1966] AC 643 ...............................................................................142
Boaler, Re [1915] 1 KB 21, CA ....................................................................................24, 25
Bolton Corpn v Owen [1962] 1 QB 470, CA.....................................................................9
Bombay Province v Bombay Municipal Corpn [1947] AC 58..................................147
BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 52 ALJR 20 ...........102
TABLE OF CASES
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
19/237
Bradford City Metropolitan Council v McMahon [1994] 1 WLR 5, CA...................77
Brett v Brett (1826) 3 Add 210; [1826] 152 ER 456; (1872) 3 Russ 437 ........................96
Brightman & Co Ltd v Tate [1919] 35 TLR 209 ...........................................................133
Bristol Airport plc v Powdrill [1990] 1 Ch 944..............................................................86
Bristol-Myers Co v Beecham Group Ltd [1974] AC 646..............................................77
British Eagle International Airlines Ltd v Compagnie NationaleAir France [1975] 1 WLR 758, HL ................................................................................71
British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] AC 765..............................................6, 103, 104
Britt v Buckinghamshire County Council [1964] 1 QB 77, CA...................................47
Bromley London Borough Council v Greater LondonCouncil [1983] 1 AC 768 ..............................................................................................136
Brook v Brook (1861) 9 HLC 193; [1861] 11 ER 703....................................................144
Brownsea Haven Properties Ltd v Poole Corpn [1958] Ch 574, CA.......................107Buchanan, James & Co Ltd v Babco Forwarding & Shipping
(UK) Ltd [1978] AC 141 .......................................................................................156, 157
Buckman v Button [1943] KB 405 ..................................................................................139
C
Camden London Borough Council v Secretary of State for theEnvironment [1988] 86 LGR 775 ....................................................................................9
Canada Southern Rly International Bridge Co (1883) 8 App Cas 723 ......................10
Canada Sugar Refining Co v The Queen [1898] AC 735.............................................97
Canterbury City Council v Colley [1993] AC 401, HL ........................................73, 133Cape Brandy Sindicate v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1921]2 KB 403, CA..........................................................................................................106, 132
Cargo ex Argos (1873) LR 5 PC 134 ..............................................................................99
Carrington v Term-a-Stor [1983] 1 WLR 138, CA.........................................................81
Carson v Carson [1964] 1 All ER 681 ............................................................................139
Carter v Bradbeer [1975] 1 WLR 1204, HL.........................................................52, 73, 83
Cartwright v MacCormack [1963] 1 WLR 18, CA........................................................99
Casanova v The Queen (1866) LR 1 PC 268.................................................................116
Chance v Adams (1696) 1 Ld Raym 77; [1696] 91 ER 948 ...........................................19
Chandler v Director of Public Prosecutions [1964] AC 763, HL................................47Chief Adjudication Officer v Foster [1993] AC 754......................................................91
Chilton v Telford Development Corpn [1987] 1 WLR 872 .................................83, 134
City of London v Wood (1701) 12 Mod Rep 669; [1701] 88 ER 1592 .........................87
Clark, (C & J) Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners[1975] 1 WLR 413, CA ............................................................................................79, 132
Coleshill and District Investment Co Ltd v Minister of Housing andLocal Government [1969] 1 WLR 746..........................................................................94
Colonial Sugal Refining Co Ltd v Melbourne Harbour TrustCommissioners [1927] AC 343 ...................................................................................134
Colquhorn v Brooks (1888) 21 QBD 52, CA ........................................................113, 114
Comdel Commodities Ltd v Siporex Trade SA [1991] 1 AC 148, HL.......................66
How to Understand an Act of Parliament
xviii
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
20/237
Table of Cases
Commissioner of Estate and Gift Duties v Fiji Resorts Ltd [1983] 2 AC 649 ...........52
Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Curran [1976]1 WLR 87, HL..............................................................................................72, 78, 83, 123
Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Atwill [1973] AC 558.............................................62
Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Gallaher Ltd [1971] AC 43 ....................137
Congreve v Home Office [1976] QB 629, CA ................................................................94
Cooke v Charles A Vogeler Co [1901] AC 102............................................................143
Copeland, ex p (1852) 22 LJ Bank 17.............................................................................115
Copeman v Gallant (1716) 1 P Wms 314; [1716] 24 ER 404.........................................33
County of London Housing Order, Re [1956] 1 WLR 499 ........................................104
Courtauld v Legh (1869) LR 4 Ex 126 .............................................................................65
Cowper-Essex v Acton Local Board (1889) 14 App Cas 153.....................................100
Cox v Army Council [1963] AC 48................................................................................145
Cox v Hakes (1890) 15 App Cas 506, HL .......................................................................72
Crawford v Spooner (1846) 6 Moore PC 1; [1846] 13 ER 582....................................101
Crowe v Lloyds British Testing Co Ltd [1960] 1 QB 592, CA...................................116
Cushing v Lupuy (1880) 5 App Cas 409.......................................................................147
Customs and Excise Commissioners v Mechanical Services (TrailerEngineers) Ltd [1979] 1 WLR 305, CA.......................................................................100
Customs and Excise Commissioners v Thorn Electrical IndustriesLtd [1975] 1 WLR 437...........................................................................................140, 154
DDAvigdor-Goldsmid v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1953] AC 347, HL......131
Davidson v Hill [1901] 2 KB 606....................................................................................145
Davis v Edmondson (1803) 3 B & P 382; [1803] 127 ER 209......................................115
Daymond v South West Water Authority [1976] AC 609, HL...................96, 101, 132
De Demko v Home Secretary [1959] AC 654, HL, see also R v BrixtonPrison Governor, ex p De Demko..............................................................................123
Dean v Green (1882) 8 PD 79............................................................................................58
Delbourgo v Field [1978] 2 All ER 193, CA..................................................................132
Devis (W) & Sons Ltd v Atkins [1977] AC 931, HL..........................................75, 77, 84
Dilworth v Commissioner of Stamps [1899] AC 99.....................................................52Director of Public Prosecutions of Jamaica v White [1978] AC 426 ........................102
Director of Public Prosecutions v Bhagwan [1972] AC 60..........................................86
Director of Public Prosecutions v Goodchild [1978] 1 WLR 578, HL........................62
Director of Public Prosecutions v Lamb [1941] 2 KB 89............................................139
Director of Public Prosecutions v Turner [1974] AC 357 ....................................97, 130
Director of Public Works v Ho Po Sang [1961] AC 901.............................................133
Doe dem Bishop Rochester v Bridges (1831) 1 B & Ad 859;[1831] 109 ER 1001 ........................................................................................................126
Doncaster Borough Council v Secretary of State for the Environment
(1992) 91 LGR 459, CA ...................................................................................................91
xix
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
21/237
Duke of Devonshire v OConnor (1890) 24 QBD 468., CA .........................................63
Dullewe v Dullewe [1969] AC 313 ..................................................................................81
Dun v Dun [1959] AC 272.........................................................................................73, 150
E
Ealing London Borough Council v Race Relations Board [1972] AC 342................83
East & West India Dock Co v Shaw Savill & Albion Co [1888] 38 Ch D 524...........20
East Riding County Council v Park Estate (Bridlington) Ltd [1957] AC 223 ........133
Eastern Counties Rlys v Marriage (1860) 9 HLC 32; [1860] 11 ER 639, HL........43, 44
Engineering Industry Training Board v Samuel Talbot (Engineers) Ltd[1969] 2 QB 270, CA......................................................................................................132
Eschersheim, The; Erkowit (owners) v Salus (owners) [1975] 1 WLR 83.......150, 155
F
F (orse A) (a minor) (publication of information), Re [1976] 3 WLR 813, CA .......130
Fairview Church Street Bromyard, Re [1974] 1 WLR 579...........................53, 84, 117
Farquharson v R [1973] AC 786.....................................................................................121
Farrell v Alexander [1977] AC 59, HL......................................................84, 96, 124, 131
Fawcett Properties Ltd v Buckingham County Council [1961]AC 636, HL ........................................................................................................11, 99, 130
Federal Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Department of Trade andIndustry [1974] 1 WLR 505, HL..........................................................................102, 131
Fielden v Morley Corpn [1899] 1 Ch 1; [1900] AC 133, CA ........................................19
First National Securities v Chiltern District Council [1975] 1 WLR 1075...............104Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd [1978] QB 108; [1981] AC 251............................156
14 Grafton Street London W1, Re [1971] 2 All ER 1...................................................135
G
Gardner v Lucas (1878) 3 App Cas 582 ................................................................135, 139
Garnett v Bradley (1978) 3 App Cas 944 ......................................................................120
Geelong Harbour Trust Commissioners v Gibbs Bright & Co (a firm)[1974] AC 810.................................................................................................................150
Gilbard v Amey Roadstone Corpn Ltd (1974) 73 LGR 43, CA ..................................75
Gilbert v Gilbert and Boucher [1928] P 1, CA .............................................................122Goswami, Re [1969] 1 QB 453, CA ..................................................................................11
Gough v Gough [1891] 2 QB 665 .....................................................................................52
Graysim Holdings Ltd v P & O Property Holdings Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 992, CA.....76
Greene v Church Commissioners for England [1974] Ch 467, CA ...........................51
Grimes v London Borough of Sutton [1973] 2 All ER 448.........................................141
Groveside Properties Ltd v Westminster Medical School (1983)47 P & CR 507, CA..........................................................................................................76
Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd v Advisory Conciliation andArbitration Service [1978] AC 655 .............................................................................101
How to Understand an Act of Parliament
xx
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
22/237
Table of Cases
H
Haigh v Charles W Ireland Ltd [1974] 1 WLR 43, HL...................................66, 72, 150
Hammersmith Rly v Brand (1869) 4 HL 171, HL .........................................................44
Hampson v Department of Education and Science [1991] 1 AC 171........................96
Hanlon v Law Society [1981] AC 124 .....................................................................63, 153
Hare v Gocjer [1962] 2 QB 641..........................................................................................72
Hart v Hudson Bros Ltd [1928] 2 KB 629.......................................................................11
Hartnell v Minister of Housing and Local Government [1963]1 WLR 1141; [1965] AC 1134.......................................................................................134
Hebbert v Purchas (1871) LR 3 PC 605, HL .....................................................................6
Hemens v Whitsbury Farm and Stud Ltd [1988] AC 601, HL ...................................52
Herbert Berry Associates Ltd (in liquidation), Re[1977] 1 WLR 617, CA .........................................................................................108, 109
Herbert Berry Associates Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners[1977] 1 WLR 1437, HL ..................................................................................67, 120, 150
Hereford and Worcester County Council v Craske (1976) 75 LGR 174 ...................89
Heydons Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7; [1584] 76 ER 637 ....................................................79
Hibbert v Acton (1889) 5 TLR 274 ...................................................................................49
Hill v East & West India Dock Co (1884) 9 App Cas 448, HL....................................61
Hollandia, The [1983] 1 AC 565 .....................................................................................156
Holmes v Bradfield Rural District Council [1949] 2 KB 1...........................................77
Holt & Co v Colyer (1881) 16 Ch D 718..........................................................................67
Hough v Windus (1884) 12 QBD 224............................................................................132
Houston v Burns [1918] AC 337 ......................................................................................63
Howard v Borneman (No 2) [1975] Ch 201; [1976] AC 301, CA..........................73, 84
Hull Dock Co v Browne (1831) 2 B & Ad 43; [1831] 109 ER 1059 ............................131
Hy Whittle Ltd v Stalybridge Corpn (1967) 65 LGR 344...........................................108
I
Income Tax Commissioners v Pemsel [1891] AC 531................................100, 106, 151
Ingle v Farrand [1927] AC 417 .......................................................................................139
Inglis v Robertson [1898] AC 616, HL ............................................................................43
Inland Renveue Commissioners v Joiner [1975] 1 WLR 1701..................122, 140, 141Inland Revenue Commissioners v Dowdall OMahoney & Co Ltd
[1952] AC 401, HL.........................................................................................................104
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Gittus [1920] 1 KB 563; [1921]2 AC 81, CA .....................................................................................................................58
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Hinchy [1960] AC 748............................63, 97, 122
Ishak v Thowfeek [1986] 1 WLR 1718.............................................................................76
J
Jackson v Hall [1980] AC 854 .........................................................................................153
James v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1977] 1 WLR 835............................132, 139Johnson v Moreton [1980] AC 37, HL ..............................................................71, 75, 101
xxi
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
23/237
Joint Properties Ltd v Williamson [1945] SC 68..............................................................8
Jones v Wrotham Park Settled Estates [1980] AC 74..................................................102
Jortin v South Eastern Rly Co (1855) 6 De GM & G 270;[1855] 43 ER 1237 ..........................................................................................................126
K
Kariapper v Wijesinha [1968] AC 716...........................................................................119
Kelly v Pierhead Ltd [1967] 1 WLR 65, CA....................................................................75
Kennedy v Spratt [1972] AC 83........................................................................................86
Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council v Wickes BuildingSupplies Ltd [1993] AC 227.........................................................................................165
Knill v Towse (1889) 24 QBD 186 ....................................................................................10
Knowles & Sons v Lancashire & Yorkshire Rly Co (1889) 14 App Cas 248...........116Knowles v Liverpool City Council [1993] 1 WLR 1428, HL .................................20, 50
L
LOffice Cherifien des Phosphates v Yamashita-Shinnihon SS CoLtd [1994] 1 AC 486; [1993] 3 WLR 266, CA ................................78, 87, 140, 141, 142
Lake v Bennett [1970] 1 QB 663, CA .............................................................................117
Lauri v Renad [1892] 3 Ch 402 .......................................................................................139
Lawson v Fox [1974] AC 803..........................................................................143, 145, 153
Lee v Showmens Guild of Great Britain [1952] 2 QB 329, CA ..................................67
Lee-Verhulst (Investments) Ltd v Harwood Trust
[1973] 1 QB 204, CA..........................................................................................65, 97, 115Legal Aid Board v Russell [1990] 2 QB 607; [1991] 2 AC 317, CA .............................66
Letang v Cooper [1965] 1 QB 232, CA ............................................................................80
Lewis v Rogers (1984) 82 LGR 670 ..................................................................................51
Lincoln Colleges Case (1595) 3 Co Rep 58b; [1595] 76 ER 764...................................96
Lincoln Corpn v Parker [1974] 1 WLR 713 ..................................................................117
Litster v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1990] AC 546 ..........................166
Littlewoods Mail Order Stores v Inland Revenue Commissioners[1961] Ch 597 .................................................................................................................116
London & Harrogate Securities Ltd v Pitts [1976] 1 WLR 1063, CA.......................113
London County Council v Central Land Board [1959] Ch 386, CA..........................93London County Council v Pearce [1892] 2 QB 109 ......................................................49
Lonhro (No 2), Re [1990] Ch 695......................................................................................85
Lord Advocate v De Rosa [1974] 1 WLR 946, HL.........................................................72
Lord Advocate v Dumbarton District Council [1990] 2 AC 580..............................147
Lucy v WT Henleys Telegraph Works Ltd [1970] 1 QB 393, CA...............................84
Lumsden v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1914] AC 877......................................90
M
Macmillan v Dent [1907] 1 Ch 107, CA ..........................................................................80
Macree v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council (1991) 90 LGR 137 .................94
How to Understand an Act of Parliament
xxii
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
24/237
Table of Cases
Madden v Madden [1974] 1 WLR 247..........................................................................140
Magnhild, SS v McIntyre Bros & Co [1920] 2 KB 321 ................................................109
Main v Stark (1890) 15 App Cas 384 .............................................................................140
Mangin v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [1971] AC 739 ......................................76
Marr, Re [1990] Ch 773, CA................................................................................38, 58, 119
Marshall v Cottingham [1982] 1 Ch 82...........................................................................64
Martin v Lowry [1926] 1 KB 550......................................................................................97
Maunsell v Olins [1975] 1 All ER 16, HL........................................................................11
Maurice (C) & Co Ltd v Ministry of Labour [1968] 1 WLR 1337, CA;see also, SOS for Employment and Productivity vC Maurice & Co ............................................................................................................114
Mayfair Property Co, Re [1898] 2 Ch 28.........................................................................79
McDonald v Howard Cook Advertising Ltd [1972] 1 WLR 90................................130Medway Drydock & Engineering Co Ltd v MV Andrea Ursula
[1973] 1 QB 265 ..............................................................................................................155
Melluish v BMI (No 3) Ltd [1995] STC 964....................................................................90
Mendip District Council v Glastonbury Festivals Ltd [1993] 91 LGR 447 ...............91
Mersey Docks v Henderson (1888) 13 App Cas 595 ..................................................101
Metheun-Campbell v Walters [1979] QB 525, CA................................................67, 134
Meux v Jacobs (1875) LR 7 HL 481, HL..........................................................................51
Middlesex Justices v The Queen (1884) 9 App Cas 757, HL.......................................25
Milford Haven Conservancy Board v Inland Revenue Commissioners[1976] 1 WLR 817, CA ....................................................................................................96
Millar v Taylor (1769) 4 Burr 2303; [1769] 98 ER 201`90
Mills v Funnell (1824) 2 B & C 988; [1824] 107 ER 616.................................................96
Ministry of Housing and Local Government v Sharp [1970] 2 QB 223, CA..........117
Mischeff v Springett [1942] 2 KB 331 ............................................................................139
Moir v Williams [1892] 1 QB 264, CA.............................................................................49
Moody and Yates Contract, Re (1885) 30 Ch D 344, CA ............................................65
Morris v Beardmore [1981] AC 446...............................................................................136
Moseley v Stonehouse (1806) 7 East 174; [1806] 103 ER 67.......................................126
Mudie & Co v Strick (1909) 100 LT 701................................................................108, 109
Mullins v Treasurer of Surrey (1880) 5 QBD 170, DC..................................................61
Murray v Director of Public Prosecutions [1994] 1 WLR 1, Hl ..............................9, 80
Murray v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1918] AC 541 .........................................99
N
NWL Ltd v Woods [1979] 1 WLR 1294, HL ............................................................71, 75
Nairn v University of St Andrews [1909] AC 147, HL ................................................11
National Assistance Board v Wilkinson [1952] 2 QB 648..........................................135
National Real Estate and Finance Co Ltd v Hassan [1939] 2 KB 61, CA................135
National Rivers Authority v Yorkshire Water Services Ltd [1994]
3 WLR 1202, HL ............................................................................................................116
xxiii
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
25/237
National Telephone Co Ltd v Postmaster-General [1913] AC 546, HL..............24, 25
Nixon v Attorney-General [1930] 1 Ch 566, CA ...........................................................47
Northern Ireland Trailers Ltd v Preston Corpn [1972] 1 WLR 203, dc...................115
Northman v Barnet London Borough Council [1979] 1 WLR 67.............................102
Norton v Spooner (1954) 9 Moore PC 103; [1854] 14 ER 237 ....................................104
Nutton v Wilson (1889) 22 QBD 744, CA.....................................................................110
P
Palmers Case (1784) 1 Leach CC (4th edn) 355..........................................................115
Passmore v Oswaldtwistle Urban District Council [1898] AC 387 .........................126
Pattison v Finningley Internal Drainage Board [1970] 2 QB 33 .........................20, 133
Peart v Stewart [1983] 2 AC 109.......................................................................................66
Pepper v Hart [1992] 3 WLR 1032...................................................76, 77, 85, 90, 91, 164Phillips v Parnaby [1934] 2 KB 299..................................................................................11
Pickstone v Freemans plc [1989] AC 66........................................................................166
Plymouth Corpn v Secretary of State for the Environment[1972] 1 WLR 1347 ..........................................................................................................77
Post Office v Estuary Radio Ltd [1968] 2 QB 740........................................................144
Post Office v Union of Communication Workers [1990] 1 WLR 981, CA................85
Powell v Kempton Park Racecource Co [1899] AC 143, HL ..............................32, 164
Pretty v Solly (1859) 426 Beav 606; [1859] 53 ER 1032..................................................38
Prince Ernest of Hanover v Attorney-General [1956]
Ch 188; [1957] AC 437, CA ............................................................................................75
Q
Qualter, Hall & Co Ltd v Board of Trade [1962] Ch 273, CA .....................................43
Quasi v Quasi [1980] AC 744, HL..................................................................................109
R
R v Baines (1840) 12 A & E 210; [1840] 113 ER 792 .......................................................59
R v Berkshire Justices (1879) 4 QBD 469.........................................................................95
R v Bexley [1993] 1 WLR 192, CA....................................................................................75
R v Board of Trustees of the Science Museum [1993] 1 WLR 1171, CA ...................96
R v Brixton Prison Governor, ex p De Demko [1959] 1 QB 268;see also De Demko v Home Secretary ......................................................................123
R v Callender [1993] QB 303, CA...................................................................................130
R v Chief Immigration Officer Heathrow Airport, ex p Salamat Bibi[1976] 3 All ER 843, CA................................................................................................155
R v Crown Court at Leeds, ex p City of Bradford ChiefConstable [1975] QB 314..............................................................................................122
R v Curran [1975] 1 WLR 876, CA...................................................................................83
R v Dunwoodie [1978] 1 All ER 923..............................................................................142
R v Dursley (Inhabitants) (1832) 3 B & Ad 465; [1832] 110 ER 168..........................125
R v Eaton (1881) 8 QBD 158..............................................................................................10
How to Understand an Act of Parliament
xxiv
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
26/237
Table of Cases
R v Federal Steam Navigation Co Ltd v Department of Trade andIndustry [1974] 1 WLR 505, HL....................................................................................71
R v Havering Justices, ex p Smith [1974] 2 All ER 484.................................................76R v Herrod, ex p Leeds City Council [1976] QB 540; see also
Walker v Leeds CC.......................................................................................................116
R v Houghton (Inhabitants) (1853) 1 E & B 501; [1853] 118 ER 523.........................103
R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex p Woolwich EquitableBuilding Society [1990] 1 WLR 1400............................................................................85
R v Judge of City of London Court [1892] 1 QB 273 ....................................................78
R v Kelt [1977] 1 WLR 1365, CA ......................................................................................47
R v Kynaston (1926) 19 Cr App R 180 ............................................................................28
R v Loxdale (1758) 1 Burr 445; [1758] 97 ER 394.................................................115, 116
R v Mohan [1976] QB 1, CA ...........................................................................................130R v Morris [1867] LR 1 CCR 90 ......................................................................................136
R v Murray (Nicholas) [1990] 1 WLR 1360, CA..........................................................145
R v Newham East Justices, ex p Hunt [1976] 1 WLR 420, DC..................................131
R v North Metropolitan Rly Co (1856) 27 LTOS 156....................................................96
R v Oliver [1944] KB 68, CCA ................................................................................139, 154
R v Registrar-General, ex p Smith [1991] 2 QB 393, CA ..............................................83
R v Reid (Phillip) [1973] 1 WLR 1283, CA......................................................................76
R v Schildkamp [1971] AC 1, HL.....................................................................................47
R v Secretary of State for the Environment, ex p Hammersmith andFulham London Borough Council [1991] 1 AC 521 ...............................................149
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex pK [1991] 1 QB 270, CA..................................................................................................157
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex p Factortame Ltd(No 2) [1991] 1 AC 603 .................................................................................................165
R v Southwark Crown Court, ex p Customs and Excise Commissioners[1990] 1 QB 650 ................................................................................................................84
R v St John Westgate Burial Board (1862) 2 B & S 703; [1862] 121 ER 1232..............99
R v Surrey Assessment Committee [1948] 1 KB 29 ......................................................43
R v Swabey (No 2) [1973] 1 WLR 183 ...............................................................................7
R v Titterton [1895] 2 QB 61, DC....................................................................................115R v Treasury [1851] 20 LJ QB 305 ..................................................................................104
R v Wheatley [1979] 1 WLR 144.....................................................................................116
R v Wilcock (1845) 7 QB317; [1845] 115 ER 509 ..........................................................106
R v Wimbledon Local Board [1882] 8 QBD 459, CA ..................................................133
Ramsay, (WT) v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1982] AC 300, HL ...................132
Rance v Mid-Downs Health Authority [1991] 1 QB 587 .............................................82
Redpath v Allen (1872) LR 4 CP 518.............................................................................115
Reed International Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1976] AC 336, HL ....131
Rippon Housing Order, Re [1939] 2 KB 838 ..................................................................67
xxv
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
27/237
Robinson & Co Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue, Singapore[1980] 1 WLR 1614 ........................................................................................................134
Robinson v Barton Eccles Local Board (1883) 8 App Cas 798, HL ............................52Rolls-Royce Co Ltd, Re [1974] 1 WLR 1584 .................................................................122
Rome v Punjab National Bank (No 2) [1989] 1 WLR 1211, CA..................................61
Rosseter v Cahlmann (1853) 8 Ex 361; [1853] 155 ER 1586........................................145
Rumbolt v Schmidt (1882) 8 QBD 603 ..........................................................................129
S
St Aubyn v Attorney-General [1952] AC 14, HL ............................................................8
Sakhuja v Allen [1973] AC 152, HL...........................................................................73, 75
Salmon v Duncombe (1886) 11 App Cas 627 ......................................................104, 106Salomon v Commissioners of Customs and Excise [1967] 2 QB 116, CA ..............157
Saneen v Abeyewickrema [1963] 2 WLR 1120, CA......................................................95
Scales v Pickering (1828) 4 Bing 448; [1828] 130 ER 840 ............................................111
Scher v Policyholders Protection Board (No 2) [1993] 3 WLR 1030, HL ..................75
Seagull Manufacturing Co Ltd (No 2), Re [1994] 2 Ch 91.........................................143
Seales Marriage Settlement, Re [1961] Ch 574 ...........................................................145
Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity v C Maurice& Co [1969] 2 AC 346; see also Maurice (C) & Co Ltd vMinistry of Labour .......................................................................................................114
Secretary of State for Social Services v Tunnicliffe [1991]2 All ER 712, CA......................................................................................................78, 141
Selangor United Rubber Estates Ltd v Craddock (No 2)[1968] 1 WLR 319 ..........................................................................................................135
Seward v Vera Cruz (1884) 10 App Cas 59, HL..........................................................119
Sharpe v Wakefield (1888) 22 QBD 239; [1891] AC 173, CA.......................................66
Shaw v Ruddin (1859) 9 Ir CLR 214................................................................................20
Sheffield Development Corpn v Glossop Sectional BuildingsLtd [1994] 1 WLR 1676, CA...........................................................................................95
Shields v E Coomes (Holdings) Ltd [1979] 1 All ER 456, CA...................................165
Simmons v Pizzey [1979] AC 37....................................................................................150
Simms v Registrar of Probates [1900] AC 323...............................................................76
Slaney v Kean [1970] 1 Ch 243 .........................................................................................63
Smith v Callender [1901] AC 297 ..................................................................................139
Smith v Richmond [1899] AC 448, HL ...........................................................................49
Smith v Schofield [1990] 1 WLR 1447 .............................................................................83
Smith, Re (1893) 24 Ch D 672 ...........................................................................................65
South Eastern Rly Co v Rly Commissioners (1881) 50 LJ KB 201..............................90
Southam, ex p Lamb, Re (1881) 19 Ch D 169, CA.........................................................95
Sovmots Investments Ltd v Secretary of State for the Environment
[1976] 2 WLR 73; [1979] AC 144, HL ...........................................................................43
How to Understand an Act of Parliament
xxvi
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
28/237
Table of Cases
Spicer v Holt [1977] AC 987............................................................................................131
Steavenson, ex p (1823) 2 B & C 34................................................................................126
Stephens v Cuckfield Rural District Council [1960] 2 QB 373....................................47
Stepney Borough Council v Schneider [1960] 58 LGR 202 .........................................76
Stock v Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd [1978] 1 WLR 231, HL ................................73, 84, 87
Stone v Boreham [1959] 1 QB 1, DC................................................................................52
Stott v West Yorkshire Road Car Co Ltd [1971] 2 QB 651, CA ..................................97
Stubbings v Webb [1993] AC 498 ..............................................................................91, 93
Sudders v Barking London Borough Council [1974] 72 LGR 430, CA...................133
Sunshine Porcelain Potteries Pty Ltd v Nash [1961] AC 927....................................140
T
Tabrisky, Re [1947] Ch 565, DC .......................................................................................61Tamlin v Hannaford [1950] 1 KB 18, CA .....................................................................148
Tarr v Tarr [1973] AC 254 .........................................................................................83, 133
Thakurain Balraj Kunwar v Rae Jagatpal Singh (1904) LR 31 1A 132.......................47
Thames & Mersey Marine Insurance Co Ltd v HamiltonFraser & Co (1887) 12 App Cas 484 ...........................................................................107
Theberge v Laundry (1876) 2 App Cas 102, HL .........................................................147
Thompson v Goold & Co [1910] AC 409 .......................................................73, 101, 102
Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No 2) (1995)Independent, 22 December ...........................................................................................90
Tilmans & Co v SS Knutsford Ltd [1908] 2 KB 395, CA ............................................108Town Investments Ltd v Department of the Environment [1976]
1 WLR 1126, CA............................................................................................................147
Turners Will Trusts, Re [1937] Ch 15...........................................................................123
U
Ulster-Swift Ltd v Taunton Meat Haulage Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 625, CA..................156
United Towns Electric Co Ltd v Attorney-General for Newfoundland[1939] 1 All ER 428........................................................................................................108
V
Vacher & Sons Ltd v London Society of Compositors[1913] AC 107, HL ................................................................................20, 24, 25, 75, 105
Vandyk v Oliver [1976] 2 WLR 235, HL...........................................................................7
W
Waddington v Miah alias Ullah [1974] 1 WLR 683............................................138, 141
Walker decd (in bankruptcy), Re [1974] Ch 193, CA................................................104
Walker v Leeds City Council [1978] AC 403, HL; see alsoR v Herrod, ex p Leeds CC ...................................................................................77, 116
Warburton v Loveland (1831) 2 D & Cl 480; [1831] 5 ER 499...............................71, 97
West Derby Union v Metropolitan Life Assurance Co [1897] AC 647, HL .............62
xxvii
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
29/237
West Midland Baptist (Trust) Association Inc v Birmingham Corpn[1979] AC 874, HL.........................................................................................................104
West v Gwynne [1911] 2 Ch 1, CA................................................................................134Westbys Settlement, Re [1950] Ch 296, CA.................................................................125
Western Bank Ltd v Schindler [1977] Ch 1; [1976] 3 WLR 341, CA.........................101
Westminster Bank Ltd v Minister of Housing and LocalGovernment [1971] AC 508.........................................................................................134
Whitehead v Haines [1965] 1 QB 200............................................................................131
Whiteman v Sadler [1910] AC 514 ................................................................................113
Whitney v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1926] AC 37..........................................99
Willingdale v Norris [1909] 1 KB 57................................................................................11
Wilson v Dagnall [1972] 1 QB 509, CA...................................................................28, 105
Woods Estate, Re (1886) Ch D 607, CA .........................................................................10Wood v Riley (1867) LR 3 CP 26......................................................................................38
Wychavon District Council v National Rivers Authority [1993] 1 WLR 125 ..........95
Y
Yorkshire Insurance Co v Clayton (1881) QBD 421, CA...........................................100
Z
Zainal bin Hashim v Malaysia (Government) [1980] AC 734 ..................................140
Zarcyznyska v Levy [1979] 1 WLR 125 ............................................................................8
Zimmerman v Grossman [1972] 1 QB 167, CA...................................................123, 130
How to Understand an Act of Parliament
xxviii
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
30/237
Table of Cases
EUROPEAN UNION CASES
A
Adorno v Joint Commission (Case 107/80) [1981] ECR 1469 ..................................180
AKZO Chemie BV and AZKO Chemie UK Ltd v Commission(Case 53/85) [1986] ECR 1965.....................................................................................173
AM & S Europe Ltd v Commission (Case 155/79) [1982] ECR 1575......................182
Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v SRL MeridionaleIndustria Salumi (Cases 212-217/80) [1981] ECR 2735..................................170, 171
Atlanta Fruchthandelsgesellshaft mbH and Others v Bundesamt
fr Ernhrung und Forstwirtschaft (Case C-465/93)(1995) Times, 29 November ........................................................................................162
B
Baccini v The Office National de lEmploi (Case 232/82) [1983] ECR 583 ............160
BALM v Raiffeisen Hauptgenossenschaft (Case 215/85) [1987] ECR 1279...........160
BayWa Ag v Bundesanstalt fr Landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung(Cases 146, 192, 193/81) [1982] ECR 1503 ........................................................174, 175
Belgische Radio EN Televisie (BRT) v SV SABAM (Case 127/73)[1974] ECR 313; [1974] 2 CMLR 238 ..........................................................................174
Bernard v European Parliament (Case 48/70) [1971] ECR 175................................176Beus, (W) GmbH & Co v Hauptzollamt Mnchen (Case 5/67)
[1968] ECR 83; [1968] CMLR 131................................................................................169
Bonsignore v Stadt Kln (Case 67/74) [1975] ECR 297 .............................................174
Borrie Clarke v Chief Adjudication Officer (Case 384/85) [1987] ECR 2865.........179
Brouwer-Kaune v Bestuur van de Bedrijfsverenging Voorhekledingbedrijf(Case 180/78) [1979] ECR 2111 ..................................................................................176
Bundesanstalt fr landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung v RaiffeisenHauptgenossenschaft eG (Case 215/85) [1987] ECR 1279 ....................................179
Burton v British Railways Board (Case 19/81 [1982] ECR 555 ................................160
CCaisse de Pension des Employs Privs v Massonet (Case 50/75)
[1975] EC 1473 ...............................................................................................................173
Campana v Bundesanstalt fr Arbeit (Case 375/85) [1987] ECR 2387...................160
Casio Computer Co GmbH Deutschland v Oberfiananzdirektion Mnchen(Case 234/87) [1989] ECR 63.......................................................................................180
Centre Public daide Socialie de Courcelles v Lebon (Case 316/85)[1987] ECR 2811; [1989] 1 CMLR 337 ................................................................167, 183
CILFIT Slr v Ministry of Health (Case 283/81) [1982] ECR 3415 ............................160
Cimenteries CBR Cementbedrijven NV v Commission (Cases 8-11/66)[1967] ECR 75; [1967] CMLR 77..................................................................................167
xxix
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
31/237
Coenen v Sociaal-Economische Raad (Case 39/75) [1975] ECR 1547; [1976]1 CMLR 30......................................................................................................................170
Cohen v Commission (Case 342/82) [1983] ECR 3829..............................................179Commission v Belgium (Case 14/79) [1980] ECR 3881.....................................174, 183
Commission v Council (Case 22/70) [1971] ECR 263; [1971] CMLR 335...............168
Commission v Council (Case 81/72) [1973] ECR 575; [1973] CMLR 639...............170
Commission v Council (Case C-300/89) 11 June 1991 ..............................................162
Commission v France (Cases 6, 11/69) [1969] ECR 523; [1970] CMLR 43 .............168
Commission v Greece (Case 68/88) [1989] ECR 2965................................................159
Commission v Italy (Case 24/68) [1969] ECR 193; [1971] CMLR 611.....................174
Commission v Italy (Case 33/69) [1970] ECR 93........................................................181
Commission v Italy (Case 38/69) [1970] ECR 47; [1970] CMLR 77.................161, 180
Commission v Italy (Case 39/71) [1973] ECR 101; [1973] CMLR 439.....................168
Commission v Italy (Case 91/79) [1980] ECR 1099....................................................161
Commission v Italy (Case 92/79) [1980] ECR 1115....................................................161
Commission v Italy (Case 95/81) [1982] ECR 2187....................................................174
Commission v Italy (Case 118/85) [1987] ECR 2599..................................................183
Commission v Italy (Case 429/85) [1988] ECR 483....................................................180
Commission v United Kingdom (Case 804/79) [1981] ECR 1045;[1982] 1 CMLR 543........................................................................................................168
Commission v United Kingdom (Case 124/81) [1983] ECR 203;[1983] 2 CMLR 1............................................................................................................174
Compagnie des Hauts Fourneaux de Chasse v High Authority (Case 15/57)[1957-58] ECR 211 .........................................................................................................182
Conradi v Directeur de la Concurrence (Case 198/86) [1987] ECR 4469...............173
Control Data v Commission (Case 13/84) [1987] ECR 275 ..............................160, 174
Costa v ENEL (Case 6/64) [1964] ECR 585..........................................................159, 165
Criminal Proceedings v JJ Zwartveld and Others (Case 2/88)[1990] ECR 1-3365 .........................................................................................................159
D
Defrenne v SA Belge de Navigation Arienne (Case 43/75)[1976] ECR 455; [1976] 2 CMLR 98............................................167, 170, 171, 178, 181
Defrenne v SA Belge de Navigation Arienne Sabena (Case 149/77)[1978] ECR 1365; [1978] 3 CMLR 312 ........................................................................169
Denkavit France v FORMA (Case 266/84) [1986] ECR 149;[1987] 3 CMLR 202........................................................................................................170
Deuka v Einfuhr-und Vorratsstelle Fr Getreide und Futtermittel(Case 78/74) [1975] ECR 421; [1975] 2 CMLR 28.....................................................170
Deutsche Grammophon Geselleschaft mbH v Metro-SB- GrossmrketGmbH and Co KG (Case 78/70) [1971] ECR 487; [1971] CMLR 631...................168
Douaneagent Der NV Nederlandse Spoorwegen v Inspecteur derInvoerrechten en Accijnzen (Case 38/75) [1975] ECR 1439 ..................................176
How to Understand an Act of Parliament
xxx
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
32/237
Table of Cases
E
Effer SpA v Kantner (Case 38/81) [1982] ECR 825.....................................................180
Estasis Salotti di Colzani Amio v RUWA Polstereimaschinen GmbH(Case 24/76) [1976] ECR 1831; [1977] 1 CMLR 345 ................................................174
Europemballage Corporation and Continental Can Co Inc v Commission(Case 6/72) [1973] ECR 215 ................................................................................160, 179
F
Fellinger v Bundesanstalt fr Arbeit, Nuremberg (Case 67/79)[1980] ECR 535; [1981] 1 CMLR 471 ..........................................................160, 175, 179
Firma Johann Lhrs v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case 78/77)[1978] ECR 169...............................................................................................................172
Firma Molkerei-Zentrale Westfalen/Lippe GmbH v Hauptzollamt
Paderborn (Case 28/67) [1968] ECR 143...................................................................178Forcheri v Belguim (Case 152/82) [1983] ECR 2323; [1984] 1 CMLR 334 ..............167
Frankfurt-am-main City v Neumann (Case 137/77) [1978] ECR 1523...................176
Frico v Voedselvoorzienings In-en Verkoopbureau(Joined Cases 424-425/85) [1987] ECR 2755.....................................................180, 183
Friedrich Haaga GmbH (Case 32/74) [1974] ECR 1201 ............................................176
G
Galeries Segoura Sprl v Rahim Bonakdarian (Case 25/76) [1976]ECR 1851; [1977] 1 CMLR 361 ....................................................................................174
Gaston Schul Douane Expediteur BV v Inspecteur der Invoerrechten enAccijnzen, Roosendaal (Case 15/81) [1982] ECR 1409...........................................179
GVL v Commission (Case 7/82) [1983] ECR 483 ...............................................160, 173
Gebr der Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke v Hauptezollamt HamburgJonas (Case 118/79) [1980] ECR 1183........................................................................167
Gerling Konzern Speziale Kreditversicherungs-AG v Amministrazione delTesoro Dello Stato (Case 201/82) [1983] ECR 2503; [1984] 3 CMLR 638 ............181
Germany v Commission (Case 18/76) [1979] ECR 343.............................................175
Germany v Commission (Case 44/81) [1982] ECR 1855...........................................176
Germany v Commission (Case 278/84) [1987] ECR 1;[1988] 1 CMLR 632 ...............................................................................................171, 174
Germany v Commission (Case 332/85) [1987] ECR 5143.........................................174Grad v Finanzamt Traunstein (Case 9/70) [1970] ECR 825;
[1971] CMLR 1 .............................................................................................160, 168, 179
Groupement des Industries Sidrurgiques Luxembourgeoisesv High Authority (Cases 7, 9/54) [1954-56] ECR 175.............................................173
Gubisch Maschinenfabrik v Palumbo Handels (Case 144/86) [1987] ECR 4861..182
H
Hagen OHG v Einfuhr-und Vorratsstelle fr Getreide und Futtermittel(Case 49/71) [1972] ECR 23; [1973] CMLR 35..........................................................175
Handelswekerij GJ Bier NV v Mines de Potasse dAlsace SA (Case 21/76)
[1976] ECR 1735.............................................................................................................182
xxxi
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
33/237
Haselhorst v Finanzamt Dusseldorf-Alstadt (Case 23/70) [1970] ECR 881 ..........179
Hauptzollamt Bielefeld v Knig (Case 185/73) [1974] ECR 607..............................175
Hauptzollamt Bremer-Freihafen v Waren-Import-Gesellschaft Krohn &Co (Case 74/69) [1970] ECR 451 ................................................................................180
Hoche v De Beste Boter v BALM (Joined Cases 154 and 155/83)[1985] ECR 1215.............................................................................................................180
Hoekstra (ne Unger) v Bestuur der Bedrijfsvereniging Voor DetailhandelEn Ambachten (Case 75/63) [1964] ECR 177, CMLR 319......................................183
Hudig en Pieters BV v Minister Van Landbouw en Visserij (Case 136/80)[1981] ECR 2233; [1983] 1 CMLR 582 ........................................................................167
Humblet v Belgium (Case 6/60) [1960] ECR 559...............................167, 178, 181, 184
I
Industrie Tessili Italiano Como v Dunlop AG (Case 12/76)[1976] ECR 1473.............................................................................................................182
Institut National dAssurance Maladie-Invalidit v Knoeller (Case 93/81)[1982] ECR 951...............................................................................................................173
Interfood GmbH v Hauptzollamt HamburgEricus (Case 92/71)[1972] ECR 231; [1973] CMLR 562..............................................................................181
International Chemical Corporation SpA v Amministrazione DelleFinanze Dello Stato (Case 66/80) [1981] ECR 1191;[1983] 2 CMLR 593........................................................................................................170
International Flavors and Fragrances IFF (Deutschland) GmbH vHauptzollamt Bad Reichenhall (Case 295/81)
[1982] ECR 3239.............................................................................................................174Italy v Commission (Case 61/82) [1983] ECR 655......................................................180
Italy v Commission (Case 342/85) [1987] ECR 4677..................................................173
Italy v Commission (Case 343/85) [1987] ECR 4711..................................................173
Italy v High Authority (Case 20/59) [1960] ECR 325 ................................................181
Irish Grain Board v Minister for Agriculture (Case 254/85)[1986] ECR 3309.............................................................................................................160
J
Johnston v RUC Cheif Constable (Case 222/84) [1986] ECR 1651..................170, 173
KKaufhof AG v Commission (Case 29/75) [1976] ECR 431........................................174
Kempf v Staatssecretaris van Justite (Case 139/85) [1986] ECR 1741.....................167
Koninklijke Lassiefabrieken NV v Hoofdproduktschap voorAkkerbrouwprodukten (Case 80/72) [1973] ECR 635...........................................176
Krupp Stahl AG v Commission (Cases 275/80, 24/81) [1981] ECR 2489 ..............177
L
Lemmerz-Werke GmbH v High Authority (Joint Cases 53 and 54/63)[1963] ECR 239...............................................................................................................180
Lemmerz-Werke GmbH v High Authority (Case 111/63)[1965] ECR 677; [1968] CMLR 280..............................................................................171
Les Verts v Parliament (Case 294/83) [1986] ECR 1357 ............................................159
How to Understand an Act of Parliament
xxxii
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
34/237
Table of Cases
Levin v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (Case 53/81) [1982] ECR 1035;[1982] 2 CMLR 454........................................................................................................167
Lipman v EC Commission (Case 143/82) [1983] ECR 1301.............................167, 175Lttiscke, Alfons v Denkavit Futtermittel GmbH (Case 182/85)
[1987] ECR 3159.............................................................................................................170
Luxembourg v Puliat (Case 230/81) [1983] ECR 255.................................................159
M
Macchiorlati Dalmas e Figli v High Authority (Case 21/64)[1965] ECR 175...............................................................................................................176
Maizena GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case 94/86)[1987] ECR 2941 ....................................................................................................173, 176
Manzoni v Fonds Nationale de Retraite des Ouvriers Mineurs
(Case 112/76) [1977] ECR 1647; [1978] 2 CMLR 416 ......................................170, 178Marinari v Lloyds Bank plc and Another (Case C-364/93) (1995)
Times, 19 October .........................................................................................................182
Marleasing (Case C-106/89) [1990] 1 ECR 4134 .........................................................165
Maulijn v Commission (Case 6/74) [1974] ECR 1287................................................175
Mavridis v European Parliament (Case 289/81) [1983] ECR 1731..........................171
Meroni & Co, Industrie Metallurgiche, SpA v Higher Authority(Case 9/56) [1957-58] ECR 133 ...................................................................................182
Micheli v Commission (Cases 198-202/81) [1982] ECR 4145 ...................................169
Mikx v Minister van Economische Zaken (Case 90/85) [1986] ECR 1695 .............181
Milch-Fett-Und Eirkontor GmbH v Hauptzollamt Saarbrcken(Case 29/68) [1969] ECR 165.......................................................................................178
Ministre Public v Maniglier (Case 320/85) [1986] ECR 2917 .........................160, 174
Moreau v EAEC Commission (Cases 15/64, 60/65) [1966] ECR 459 .....................176
Muras v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case 12/73) [1973] ECR 963..................183
N
Netherlands v High Authority (Case 25/59) [1960] ECR 355 ..................................181
Netherlands v Reed (Case 59/85) [1986] ECR 1283 ...........................................160, 180
Netherlands, The v Commission (Case 11/76) [1979] ECR 245.......................175, 181
Nicolaus Corman & Fils SA v Hauptzollamt Gronau (Case 64/81)[1982] ECR 13.................................................................................................................182
Nicolet Instrument v Hauptzollamt Berlin-Packhof (Case 232/86)[1987] ECR 5025 ....................................................................................................160, 180
Niederrheinische Bergwerks-AG v High Authority (Joint Cases 2-3/60)[1961] ECR 133...............................................................................................................184
North Kerry Milk Products Ltd v Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries(Case 80/76) [1977] ECR 425; [1977] 2 CMLR 769 ..........................................175, 183
O
Officer van Justitie v Kramer (Cases 3, 4, 6/76) [1976] ECR 1279............................161
Officine Elettromeccaniche Ing A. Merlini v High Authority(Case 108/63) [1965] ECR1..........................................................................................182
xxxiii
-
7/25/2019 How to Understand an Act of Parliament
35/237
P
PPW Internationaal NV v Hoofdproduktschap Voor Akkerbouwprodukten(Case 61/72) [1973] ECR 301.......................................................................................174
Papierfabrik Schoellershammer Schoeller & Shne GmbH & Co KG vCommission (Case 283/82) [1983] ECR 2419...........................................................177
R
R v Bouchereau (Case 30/7) [1977] ECR 1999.............................................................179
Reich v Hauptzollamt Landau (Case 64/74) [1975] ECR 274 ..........................172, 176
Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG v Landwirtschaftskammer fr Saarland(Case 33/76) [1976] ECR 1989; [1977] 1 CMLR 533 ................................................169
Reyners v Belgium (Case 2/74) [1974] ECR 631; [1974] 2 CMLR 305.....................174
Rindone v Allgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Bad Urach-Mnsingen(Case 22/86) [1987] ECR 1339.....................................................................................174
Robert Bosch GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hildesheim (Case 1/77)[1977] ECR 1473; [1977] 2 CMLR 563 .......................................................................183
Roser (Case 238/84) [1986] ECR 795.............................................................................174
Ruckdeschel, Albert & Co v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-St Annen(Cases 117/76, 16/77) [1977] ECR 1753; [1979] 2 CMLR 445................................169
S
Saarland and Others v Ministry of Industry and Others (Case 187/87)[1989] 1 CMLR 529........................................................................................................167
Sandoz BV (Case 174/82) [1983] ECR 2445; [1984] 3 CMLR 43 ...............................174
Schluter und Maack v Hauptzollamt Hamburg-Jonas (Case 94/71)[1972] ECR 307...............................................................................................................175
Schwarze v Einfuhr-Und Vorratsstelle Fr Getreide Und Futtermittel(Case 16/6