The House treated words as surplusage in a statute which contained criminal sanctions in order to avoid the substantial frustration of the object of the Act. Words in an Act are not to be rendered ‘insensible, absurd or ineffective to achieve its evident purpose.’
Lord Bridge said: ‘It is a canon of construction that, if it be possible, effect must be given to every word of an Act of Parliament or other document; but that, if there be a word or a phrase therein to which no sensible meaning can be given, it must be eliminated.’
and ‘I recognise that this is a strong course to take in construing a statute and one which imputes an unusual degree of ineptitude to the draftsman . . the presumption that every word in a statute must be given some effective meaning is a strong one, but the courts have on occasion been driven to disregard particular words or phrases when, by giving effect to them, the operation of the statute would be rendered insensible, absurd or ineffective to achieve its evident purpose.’
Judges:
Lord Bridge
Citations:
[1990] 2 AC 716, [1990] 1 All ER 993
Statutes:
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 Sch 3
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Stone v Yeovil Corporation 1876
Brett J said: ‘It is a canon of construction that, if it be possible, effect must be given to every word of an Act of Parliament or other document; but that, if there be a word or phrase therein to which no sensible meaning can be given, it must be . .
Cited by:
Cited – Haw, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Another CA 8-May-2006
The applicant had demonstrated continuously against the war in Iraq from the pavement outside the House of Commons. The respondent sought an order for his removal under the law preventing demonstrations near Parliament without consent which was . .
Cited – Barratt Homes Ltd v Dwr Cymru Cyfyngedig (Welsh Water) SC 9-Dec-2009
The developers wanted to construct their private sewer to the public sewer at a point convenient to them. The water company said a connection at the point proposed would overload the sewer, and refused. The developer claimed that it had the right to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Constitutional
Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.242611