Statutory Interpretation Business Law Assignment Essay

Statutory Interpretation moving in Law Assignment - Essay ExampleSince statutes are presented in written form, it is wi trim back the courts power to translate the written word into the actionable form of legal philosophy i.e. known as ventilation system life to the police stuff. However, due to the complexities of language and the imperfect nature of legislation, sometimes the intention or purpose of the law may non be conveniently passed in the wordings of the various Acts. This is where the courts derive their power ensuring that the intention of parliament is carried into the law. The power of the court to fork out statutes i.e. statutory interpretation has generated controversy for as long as sevens has been in existence. This is because of the subjective nature of interpretation which relies heavily on the beliefs and understanding of the presiding judge. everywhere time, judges entertain been accused of usurping the role of Parliament and making law by giving interp retation to statutes in a manner that suits their version of the law. Lord Denning himself once drew criticism in Magor and St Mellons v Newport Borough Council (1952) HL when he remarked that We do not model here to pull the language of Parliament to pieces and make nonsense of it. We sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and carry it out and we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactment than by opening it up to destructive depth psychology (pg. 25). While he well intended to maintain Parliaments supremacy by attempting to interpret acts based on its intention, he went a bit overboard by suggested that the courts could fill in the gaps in the law which in itself would be tantamount to making law. On appeal to the stand of Lords, Lord Simonds exposit Dennings interpretation of the powers of the courts as a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin guise of interpretation. The House of Lords instead stated that gaps disclos ed in laws can only be remedied through with(predicate) appeals. The extent of the judicatures power to interpret law remains blurred which is a major reason judges have often been accused of making law a role not within their mandate. In Fischer v Bell (1961) and Stock v. Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd. 1978 1 WLR 231, the interpretation of the courts of statutes was so repellent to Parliament that the rulings themselves were overturned through statutes in the same year they were made. This shows that the powers of interpretation are sometimes treat as judges attempt to redefine statutes which in their opinion are ambiguous, unfair or unjust. Over the years, several rules of interpretation have come up all in an attempt to guide the courts in the correct usage of their power or in a manner respectful of the separation of powers doctrine. disdain these rules, Twining and Miers (2010) state that over 50 percent of High Court cases and 90 percent of cases before the House of Lords invo lve aspects of interpretation of the law. Since the courts interpretation of the law determines how they apply it e.g. in criminal law for purposes of sentencing, the interpretation of the law continues to be a major cause of appeals and a major driving force for litigation. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that the courts may have powers to apply the law this power is merely accompanying to the interpretation that the court makes of the pertinent law. In fact, this power is often