The Golden Rule of Statutory Interpretation

The golden rule was developed as a way of circumventing the strict approach of the literal rule. The judges should start by first applying the literal rule. The golden rule of statutory interpretation may be applied where an application of the literal rule would lead to an absurdity. The courts may then apply a secondary meaning. (River Wear Commissioners v Adamson) (1876-77) L.R. 2 App Cas 743. ‘Absurdity’ is a strong word and its use suggests that the golden rule should be sparingly used. Judges cannot simply use the golden rule to get a different outcome. The judges cannot use it because the application of the literal rule would be unfair or harsh (See LNER v Berriman Case summary). Under the golden rule, it falls to the judges to decide if a particular result would be absurd. Judges may differ in what is and is not absurd.             

Case examples:

R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367         Case summary        Youtube clip

 

Re Sigsworth [1935] 1 Ch 98    Case summary 

 

Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7 Case summary 

Disadvantages the golden rule

• Judges are able to add or change the meaning of statutes and thereby become law makers infringing the separation of powers.

• Judges have no power to intervene for pure injustice where there is no absurdity 

London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman [1946] AC 278       Case summary 

Advantages of the golden rule 

• Errors in drafting can be corrected immediately eg:

R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367         Case summary

• Decisions are generally more in line with Parliament's intention

• Closes loopholes

• Often gives a more just result

• Brings common sense to the law

See also the Literal rule and Mischief rule of statutory interpretation

The Golden Rule of Statutory Interpretation