Statutory Interpretation

Paper Summary:

This paper examines how the judges in the case Litster v Forth Dry Dock, employed the four commonly accepted rules of statutory interpretation: the literal rule, the golden rule, the mischief rule and purposive construction. It looks at how the case itself concerned a claim of unfair dismissal by twelve employees of the insolvent Forth Dry Dock & Engineering Co., dismissed from their jobs one hour prior to the transfer of the business to Forth Estuary Engineering Ltd. It also focuses on the view that the primary use of purposive construction enabled the judges to reach a decision which may not have been possible with the three more traditional approaches.

From the Paper:

"The literal rule, perhaps the most fundamental and commonly used "rule" of statutory interpretation, suggests that a judge must adhere to the exact wording of a statute, based on the premise that courts are limited in their interpretive discretion. Even in such cases as Stock V Frank Jones, in which the clear wording of legislation relating to strike action led to a seemingly unfair judgement, application of the literal rule was unavoidable, as explained by Lord Edmund-Davies - "dislike of the effect of a statute is no reason for departing from its plain language" . In Litster, it is clear that the literal rule had been applied by the Court of Session, which deemed that the applicants had not been dismissed "immediately before" the transfer, and then used this as the basis of their ruling to obviate the transferee of any responsibility to them."

More papers on Statutory Interpretation:

• Analytical Essay # 131830 : "Statutory Interpretation and the Rizzo Case"
• Research Paper # 103700 : "Statutory Interpretation in "Nguyen; R. v. Hess"
• Essay # 53963 : "Judicial Interpretation Theory"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: