Unaltered words in an Act are to be construed as meaning what they did before the others were amended. Parliament in deleting particular words from the section in question was to exclude particular articles from liability to tax. The subsequent general words could, looked at in isolation, have prevented that intent being achieved. Hence, in order to give effect to the clear intention of Parliament, the general words had to continue to be construed in the restrictive fashion appropriate when the particular words, subsequently repealed, were in the Act.
Brett LJ said: ‘The schedule is as much a part of the statute, and is as much an enactment as any other part’.
Judges:
Brett LJ, Bramwell LJ
Citations:
(1878) 3 Ex D 214
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Boss Holdings Ltd v Grosvenor West End Properties and others HL 30-Jan-2008
The tenant sought to enfranchise the property under the 1967 Act. The freeholders replied that it was not a ‘house’ within the Act at the time of the notice. It had been built in the eighteenth century as a house, but the lower floors had been . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 15 May 2022; Ref: scu.264096
