A re-enacting provision modified the original provision so as to include the words ‘all machinery or plant used in the process of loading or unloading of any ship in any dock, harbour or canal.’ The provision introduced the word ‘harbour’. This was a very substantial change for those affected by it.
Held: The proper approach to the construction of statutory provisions may change if Parliament directs that the provisions are to be construed in terms of a later, modified, enactment.
Stirling LJ stated: ‘The original and re-enacted clauses need not be identical, and the sole question is whether when the modification takes the form of extending and not narrowing the former provisions it amounts to a modification within the meaning of the Interpretation Act.’
Collins MR asked whether the introduction of the word ‘harbour’ was ‘so radical an alteration of the previously existing section as not to fall within the term ‘modification’?’ He concluded that the modified provision was re-enacted – ‘with the intention of altering the existing state of things by the modification of the Factory Act 1895. This intention of the Interpretation Act 1889, enabled the Legislature to carry out in the way in which it has been carried out, for in my opinion there is no reason to limit the word ‘modification’, which is equally applicable whether the effect of the alteration is to narrow or to enlarge the provisions of the former Act.’
Judges:
Stirling LJ
Citations:
[1903] 1 KB 890
Cited by:
Cited – Morrison Sports Ltd and Others v Scottish Power SC 28-Jul-2010
A fire caused substantial damage to buildings. It arose from a ‘shim’ placed in a fuse box which then overheated. The parties disputed whose employee had inserted the shim. The Act under which the Regulations had been made was repealed and replaced . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.421500