The House considered the interpretation of a statute dealing with public rights of navigation.
Held: ‘Where the interpretation of a statute is obscure or ambiguous, or readily capable of more than one interpretation, light may be thrown on the true view to be taken of it by the aim and provisions of a subsequent statute’
Lord Buckmaster said of the statement by Lord Sterndale in Cape Brandy: ‘That is, in my opinion, an accurate expression of the law, if by ‘any ambiguity’ is meant a phrase fairly and equally open to divers meanings’.
Judges:
Lord Buckmaster
Citations:
[1928] AC 143
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cape Brandy Syndicate v Inland Revenue Commissioners CA 1921
Rowlatt J said: ‘In a taxing Act one has to look merely at what is clearly said. There is no room for any intendment. There is no equity about a tax. There is no presumption as to a tax. Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied’ and . .
Cited by:
Cited – Attorney-General (ex relatione Yorkshire Derwent Trust Ltd) v Brotherton HL 5-Dec-1991
The appellants owned land through which flowed the river Derwent. Attempts were to be made to restore the river to navigability. The appellants denied that any public rights existed over the river.
Held: The 1932 Act could only give rise to a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land, Litigation Practice
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.215860
