Issue

In this paper, the issue to be discussed is whether Solomon is likely to violate section 16

Rule

Interpreting the law is an important element for judges since they must evaluate cases based on the provisions mentioned in this Statute. If no clear analysis is made, there would be an error of justice. The mechanism by which courts analyze and execute legislation is a statutory interpretation. Any interpretation is often expected in cases where a statute is involved. The definitions of regulation often have a straightforward and simple meaning. In some instances, however, the terms of the law have to be interpreted by the judge with a certain complexity or vagueness. Judges use different instruments and methods of statutory interpretation to determine the importance of laws, including conventional canons of understanding of a statute, legislative history and intent. The rule of law will apply in common law jurisdictions to laws passed by the legislative body as well as delegated regulations, such as rules of an administrative agency.

Interpretation is how any document or something is explained, written and translated. It requires simply an act that reveals the true meaning of the words used in the law. Different references used are restricted to analyzing the written document and clarifying what the words in the written text or the rules mentioned are precise. To determine the exact purpose of the legislature, courts are common in this phase. Since it is not only a matter of interpreting the law but also of applying it to suit from case to case in a substantive way, it is also used to create the real connotation with the actual intent of the legislature of any Act or document. There may be hostility in the law that needs to be healed, and this can be achieved by the implementation of different standards and interpretation theories that often disagree with the actual sense. The description seeks to explain, which may not be so simple, the meaning of the words used in the Statutes.

For interpretation of the rules, judges may refer to the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth). Section 15AA of the Act, which specifies the reading of the Act in such way as to accomplish the intent of the Act, may also be referred. Section15AB(2)(c) of Act stated above also provides for the application of the laws through referrals to external matters in the event of any examination, consultation, or publication by the Legislative or the Parliament Committee or House of the Parliament to said Act in question. Besides, when interpreting the Laws, the courts may obey the rules below:

1. Common law rules of statutory interpretation: Judges who are part of the government judiciary establish common law through the judgments of their cases. For instance, the concept of ‘distinct legal entity’ of a corporation has been interpreted by the judges in the landmark case of Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1896].
2. Principle of Law: A simple principle of law is that courts should, whenever possible, give effects to any clause and word in a statute, excluding, any mechanisms suggesting that the legislature is unaware of the meaning of the language used. Where the common law rules are opposed, one method is often favoured by the Act. For instance, a discrepancy between the ‘literal’ and ‘purposive’ reading of statutes is often perceived by s. 15AA, a purposeful method is enforced by the Act.
3. Literal rule: The literal rule practices the simple common meaning of words.  Fisher v Bell [1960] is a famous case where the concept of this rule has been used. Here, the defendant is a shopkeeper, who showed a flick knife with price tickets at his window and was arrested in 1959 for offering a violent weapon for sale which was against to the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959. The High Court ruled that following the sense of contract law, the term ‘offer for sale’ had to be taken literally and that the consumer was merely invited to negotiate with the arms displaying. The parliamentary draftsmen were supposed to know the correct legal terminology, hence not altering the common law expression.

Reference

Fisher v Bell [1960] 3 All ER 731

Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1896] UKHL 1, [1897] AC 22

The Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)