Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
literal rule - Coggle Diagram
literal rule
The LITERAL RULE is used by judges to work out EXACTLY what the law is. It is usually the FIRST rule of statutory interpretation applied by a judge.
However, not all judges use the literal rule of statutory interpretation, as it can lead to some UNUSUAL RESULTS
-
LNER v Berriman (1946)
The Act stated that a look-out SHOULD BE PROVIDED for men working ON or NEAR the railway line ‘FOR THE PURPOSES OF RELAYING OR REPAIRING' it.
A RAILWAY WORKER was KILLED while doing maintenance work. His WIDOW tried to CLAIM COMPENSATION because there had NO LOOK - OUT PROVIDED by the railway COMPANY in accordance with a regulation under the Fatal Accidents Act.
The court took the words ‘REPAIRING and ‘RELAYING’ in their LITERAL meaning and said that oiling points was MAINTAINING the line and NOT REPAIRING OR RELAYING so that Mrs Berriman’s claim FAILED.
-
Mesure v Mesure (1960)
The Matrimonial Causes Act 1950 allowed a DIVORCE where one spouse had received 5 or more years of “CONTINUOUS TREATMENT” for mental illness.
Mr Mesure was unable to obtain a divorce, as the treatment was not “CONTINUOUS”. A literal interpretation of the word “CONTINUOUS” was used, meaning that the treatment had to be WITHOUT ANY INTERRUPTIONS AT ALL.
Mrs Mesure was in a MENTAL HOSPITAL from 1952 to 1959 EXCEPT FROM 11 WEEKS at a sanatorium getting TREATMENT for tuberculosis in 1956. Mr Measure wants a DIVORCE.
Since the TREATMENT for mental illness had been SUSPENDED while the wife was being treated for TUBERCULOSIS, the requirement for “continuous treatment” was NOT MET.
-
A judge must follow the plain, ordinary or literal meaning of the words contained in a statute.
Judges using the literal rule look only at Parliament’s words, not Parliament’s intention in creating the statute