When interpreting delegated legislation, the Court ought be concerned with practical considerations rather than construing it by meticulous comparison of the language of the various provisions such as might be appropriate in construing sections of an Act of Parliament and that if the language is capable of more than one interpretation, a court ought discard the more natural meaning if it leads to an unreasonable, result, and adopt that interpretation which leads to a reasonably practical result.
Lord Reid said: ‘I find it necessary to make some general observations about the interpretation of regulations of this kind. They are addressed to practical people skilled in the particular trade or industry . . They have often evolved by stages as in the present case, and as a result they often exhibit minor inconsistencies, overlapping and gaps. So they ought to be construed in light of practical considerations, rather than by a meticulous comparison of the language of their various provisions, such as might be appropriate in construing sections of an Act of Parliament . . difficulties cannot always be foreseen, and it may happen that in a particular case the requirements of a regulation are unreasonable or impracticable; but, if the language is capable of more than one interpretation, we ought to discard the more natural meaning if it leads to an unreasonable result, and adopt that interpretation which leads to a reasonably practicable result.’
Judges:
Lord Reid
Citations:
[1963] 1 WLR 929, [1963] 3 All ER 180
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Personal Injury, Construction
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.535596