Untitled Document

5th edition page		Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
Start	End	Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
23	24	1	construe, meaning of		‘I shall use the words "interpretation" and "construction" interchangeably, as they are in the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)’: Murray Gleeson, Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, ‘The meaning of legislation: context, purpose and respect for fundamental right’, Melbourne, 31 July 2008, p. 4n..
25		3	legal meaning		Use of the term ‘legal meaning’ was endorsed by the High Court of Australia: see Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355 at [78] and by the Supreme Court of Ireland: see Maguire v DPP [2004] IESC 53. See also Lawlor v. Flood [1999] IEHC 10 at para. 54.
40		9	ignorantia juris neminem excusat		‘Ignorance of the law is no defence, but it can sometimes amount to mitigation’: R v Rahman, R v Mohammed [2008] EWCA Crim 1465, [2008] 4 All ER 661, at [44].
44		10	mandatory and directory requirements		Code s 10 was applied in R v B [2000] EWCA Crim 42. Regarding the first sentence in Code s. 10 see McBride, Re Application for Judicial Review [2003] NICA 23(1) at [30] (preamble to Queen's Regulations says that they are to be interpreted ‘reasonably and intelligently … bearing in mind that no attempt has been made to provide for necessary and self evident exceptions’, in other words, they are not to be construed literally and with the strictness of a statute).
45	47	10	mandatory and directory requirements		As to the passage beginning ‘There is a recent tendency’ near the foot of page 45, note that in Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 432, [2008] 3 All ER 923, at [22], the Court of Appeal held that the Defamation Act 1996 s 15 ‘constitutes a mandatory rule of law’.
45	47	10	mandatory and directory requirements		As to the passage beginning ‘Where a requirement arises’ near the top of p. 46 and continuing to the end of p. 47 see Robinson, Re Application for Judicial Review [2001] NIQB 49.
46		10	mandatory and directory requirements		As regards the first complete paragraph on page 46 see Sekhon & Ors v R [2002] EWCA Crim 2954 at [25}: ‘Even if the terms “directory” and “mandatory” are not used the problem remains of answering the question "what is the effect of non-compliance with procedural requirements?"’
48	49	10	consequential construction	mandatory and directory provisions, and	The passage beginning ‘If the court were to hold . . .’ immediately before Example 10.4 was considered in Goshawk Dedicated (No 2) Ltd v The Bank of Scotland [2005] EWHC 2906 (Ch) at paragraphs 107, 108.
52		10	mandatory and directory requirements		In relation to the passage on page 52 headed Interference with liberty, note the following. (1) The sentence beginning ‘Where an Act’ was followed in R v B [2000] EWCA Crim 42. (2) In the case of an appeal relating to a criminal conviction the appeal court may not apply the mandatory/directory test expressly but, where it in fact considers the duty breached to be mandatory, may quash the conviction on the ground that it was obtained unlawfully: see eg R v Christopher Bristol [2007] EWCA Crim 3214.
56		10	mandatory and directory requirements		With regard to the passage headed Purely technical contraventions: (1) See Glasgow City Council v. AD [2005] ScotSC 35 at [22]. (2) Note that Parliament sometimes states expressly that purely technical contraventions are not to vitiate an act: see eg Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s 14(11) and Sekhon & Ors v R [2002] EWCA Crim 2954 at [28].
79		14	strict liability		In relation to the reference here to strict liability note that Waller LJ said that strict liability ‘should only be imposed by strict language’: Smith v Northamptonshire County Council [2008] EWCA Civ 181, [2008] 3 All ER 1054, at [29].
89	90	15	Padfield approach		This was applied to the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 s 37 (licensing of Hackney carriages) in R (on the application of Newcastle City Council) v Berwick-Upon-Tweed Borough Council & Ors [2008] EWHC 2369 (Admin) at [29].
5th edition page		Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
Start	End	Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
104		19	separation of powers, doctrine of		There is a ‘separation, in national government, between the powers of the executive and the powers of Parliament’: R (on the application of Bradley and Others) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2008] EWCA Civ36, [2008] 3 All ER 1116, at [54]. The case decided that where persons were aggrieved because a minister rejected a finding against them by the Parliamentary Ombudsman under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 ‘judicial review principles apart, their remedy is political, not juridical’ (see [141]).
108	111	19	jurisdiction	ouster of	A court’s jurisdiction cannot be ousted by mere implication: A v B (Investigatory Powers Tribunal: jurisdiction) [2008] EWHC 1512 (Admin), [2008] 4 All ER 511, at [12].
112	113	19	advocate	lay	Note that the question whether a person has a right of audience is to be determined solely in accordance with the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 pt II: see s 27 of that Act. For a full updating regarding use of a McKenzie friend see Re N (A Child) [2008] EWHC 2042 (Fam).
118	121	19	open court, principle of the	nature of	Munby J referred to ‘principles of open justice – transparency in the modern jargon’: see Re N (A Child) [2008] EWHC 2042 (Fam), at para. 20.
129		20	court	guidelines by	In exercising its appellate function to lay down guidelines as to the exercise of a discretion, a court is not expounding a rule of law or practice or setting a binding precedent: Fletcher (Executrix of the estate of Carl Fletcher (deceased) v A Train & Sons Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 413, [2008] 4 All ER 699, at [11], [24].
136	138	21	judicial notice	fact, of	The court will not take judicial notice of the alleged fact that the public perception of animals has changed in recent times: Hanchett-Stamford v Attorney General and another [2008] EWHC 330 (Ch), [2008] 4 All ER 323, at [23].
143		23	legal proceedings	academic or hypothetical point	Patten J warned against construing an enactment in the absence of factual information, adding: ‘To construe the provisions in the abstract risks giving the words used an over-wide or unrealistic explanation . . .’ (Re Metronet Rail BCV Ltd (In PPP Administration) [2007] EWHC 2697 (Ch), [2008] 2 All ER 75, at [21], [22].) See also Code 5th edn p. 142 n. 7 (preliminary point of law).
144		23	academic point		For a case similar to Example 23.1 see R (on the application of Gilboy) v Liverpool City Council [2008] EWCA Civ 751, [2008] 4 All ER 127, at [2].
168	178	26	precedent, doctrine of	obiter dictum [new entry, not in fifth edition]	The term obiter dictum derives from the Latin for a saying uttered ‘by the way’, originally two words ob iter. The OED (2nd edn 1992) cites, from the title page of Augustine Birrell’s book Obiter Dicta (1884): ‘An obiter dictum, in the language of the law, is a gratuitous opinion, an individual impertinence [that is something strictly not pertinent] which, whether it be wise or foolish, right or wrong, bindeth none - not even the lips that utter it.’ In 2008 Mummery LJ said: ‘There is no point in cluttering up the law reports with obiter dicta, which could, in some cases, embarrass a court having to decide the issue later on’ (Housden and another v Conservators of Wimbledon and Putney Commons [2008] EWCA Civ 200, [2008] 3 All ER 1038, at [31]).
174		26	per incuriam decision	nature of	The definition given on Code page 174 was described by the Court of Appeal as ‘the modern doctrine of per incuriam in criminal cases’: see R v BR [2003] EWCA Crim 2199 at [30].
174	175	26	Lords, House of	precedent, and	For a more recent example of an overruling under the 1966 Practice Statement see A v Hoare and other appeals [2008] UKHL 6, [2008] 2 All ER 1 (overruling Stubbings v Webb [1993] 1 All ER 322).
198		32	Act of Parliament	overriding effect of	Rug analogy The Court of Appeal of New Zealand described this as putting the position ‘graphically’ in Vector Limited & Anor v Transpower New Zealand Limited [1999] NZCA 167 at [53].
198	200	32	common law	abolition of common law rules by Act	An example of the abolition of common law rules by statute is the abolition of the common law offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 ss 79, 149 and 153(2) and Sch 28: see FB’s 2008 article at www.francisbennion.com/2008/021.htm.
5th edition page		Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
Start	End	Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
205		33	Bill, parliamentary	legal status of	As to preparatory acts by a government department in anticipation of the passing of a Bill see R (on the application of Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and another) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Shropshire County Council, interested party) [2008] EWCA Civ 148, [2008] 3 All ER 548.
237		48	prerogative instrument	nature of	A prerogative instrument may be made by a minister on his own authority, eg the Immigration Rules on which see Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 308 at[17]-[19]. As to Code s. 48 see also BW, Re Judicial Review [2007] NICA 44 at [28].
244		50	delegated legislation	Act, conflict with	Henry LJ applied the passage headed must not conflict with law in Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Secretary For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 13 at [29].
245		50	delegated legislation	‘as if in Act’	(1) The first two sentences of the Comment on Code s 87 were followed in R (on the application of Secretary Of State For Home Department) v Burke [1998] EWHC Admin 913 at [4]. (2) The sentence referred to in footnote 5 on page 245 was acted on in R (on the application of Lightfoot) v Lord Chancellor [1998] EWHC Admin 827 ( (see [51]).
247	248	51	legislation	primary and secondary [new entry, not in fifth edition]	The words ‘since this has the effect of converting it into primary legislation’ preceding Example 51.1 were cited to the ECtHR in Kafkaris v Cyprus [2008] ECHR 143 at para. 50.
256		58	Attorney General v Great Eastern Railway Co., rule in		See Re Application by Local Government Auditor [2005] NIQB 52.
258		58(2)	severance	delegated legislation, in	For an example of severance of a byelaw see Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence [2008] EWHC 416 (Admin).
262	263	59	delegated legislation	primary intention, rule of	Code s 59 was applied in: R (on the application of Sarwar & Anor,) v Secretary Of State For Social Security [1996] EWCA Civ 801; HM Revenue & Customs v Dunwood Travel Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 174.
270		65	byelaws	uncertainty, void for	For an example of severance of a byelaw see Tabernacle v Secretary of State for Defence [2008] EWHC 416 (Admin).
272		66	direction		See N & Anor, Re Application for Judicial Review [2005] NIQB 75 at [8](2).
294		81	amendment to Act	delegated legislation, by	Lord Bingham of Cornhill said that recognition of Parliament’s primary law making role requires the narrow approach indicated on p. 294: R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, ex p Spath Holme Limited [2001] 2 AC 349 at 382. See also Traynor & Anor, Re Judicial Review [2007] ScotCS CSOH_78 at [8].
298		83	amendment to Act	reference to amended Act	Code s 83 was discussed by the Federal Court of Australia in Austereo Limited v Trade Practices Commission [1993] FCA 301 at [39].
5th edition page		Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
Start	End	Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
300		85	repeal	nature of	Code s 85 has been approved in Australia: R v Abdul Haque Omarjee [1995] VSC 94 at [46].
304		87	repeal	implied	Substitution To substitute a new provision for an existing provision is by implication expressly to repeal the existing provision: R v Abdul Haque Omarjee [1995] VSC 94 [Australia].
304		87	repeal	implied	(1) The first two sentences of the Comment on Code s 87 were followed in R (on the application of Secretary Of State For Home Department) v Burke [1998] EWHC Admin 913 at [4]. (2) Regarding the sentence before Example 87.1 beginning ‘The possibility of implied repeal goes wider . . .’ Buxton LJ said in relation to the reference to anomaly: ‘No authority is cited for the latter proposition and I am unable to act on it’: O'Byrne v Secretary of State for Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [1996] EWCA Civ 499 at paragraph 26. In view of this dictum the reference to anomaly should be treated as withdrawn.
305		87	repeal	implied	The Court of Appeal followed what is said on p. 305 regarding the presumption against implied repeal in Henry Boot Construction (UK) Ltd v Malmaison Hotel Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 175.
306		88	Generalia specialibus non derogant		Henry LJ applied Code s 88 in Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Secretary For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 13 at [31].
314	315	96	transitional provisions		Code s 96 was approved by (1) Buxton LJ in Odelola v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWCA Civ 308 at[17]; (2) McGuinness J in Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1997] IEHC 181, [1998] 2 IR 113; (3) O’Higgins J in Mullins v Hartnett [1998] 4 IR 426. As to Code s 96(2) see (1) R v Cartwright [2007] EWCA Crim 2581 esp. at [27] (where in error Code s 269 is referred to instead of Code s 96); (2) Quinlivan v. Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1997] IEHC 181, [1998] 2 IR 113, at paras. 51, 52.
317		97	retrospectivity	nature of	As to the passage on p. 317 beginning ‘It is important to grasp the true nature’ (including Example 97.3) see (1) MM (Section 8: commencement) Iran [2005] UKAIT 00115 at paras 13, 14, (2) Betterment Properties (Weymouth) Ltd v Dorset County Council [2007] EWHC 365 (Ch), [2007] 2 All ER 1000, at [31], [32] (confirmed [2008] EWCA Civ 22).
319		97	statutory interpretation	public good construction	The opening sentences under this heading on page 319 were approved: (1) by McGuinness J (who also approved Code s 264) in Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1998] 2 IR 113; (2) by O’Higgins J in Mullins v Hartnett [1998] 4 IR 426. They were also referred to in Quinlivan v. Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1997] IEHC 181; [1998] 2 IR 113 at paras. 46, 47
320		98	retrospectivity	procedural provisions and	The wording of Code s 98 was approved by Peart J in DPP v McDermott and Riordan (12 May 2005, unreported: see David Dodd, Statutory Interpretation in Ireland (Tottel, 2008) p. 109)
329		103	territorial extent of Act		Code s 103 was applied in Financial Times Ltd v. Bishop [2003] UKEAT 0147_03_2511 at para. 61.
330		104	territorial extent of Act	uniform meaning throughout extent	As to Code s. 104 see Davidson, Re Application For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 293, at [23].
360n		128	application of Act	principles governing	Add to the authorities cited in footnote 2 on p. 360: Serco Ltd. v Lawson [2004] EWCA Civ 12 at paragraph 16; Faulkner & Ors v BT Northern Ireland & Ors [2005] NIIT 3933_01 (race discrimination provision extending only to Northern Ireland; can comparators in Great Britain be taken into account?); Holis Metal Industries Ltd v GMB & Anor [2007] UKEAT 0171_07_1212 at 34; Transocean International Resources Ltd & Ors v. Russell & Ors [2006] UKEAT 0074_05_0410 at paras 20, 26, 52, 54, 71, 72, 79 (application of regulations to continental shelf).
379	380	131	application of Act	non-resident Britons, to	Add the following to the enactments listed in the passage on pp. 379-380 beginning ‘Other criminal statutes dealing with offences overseas include’: Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 s 72 (sex tourism).
387		133	omission to act		Code s 133 was considered by Sedley J in Kennet District Council v Young & Ors [1998] EWHC Admin 938
387	388	134	composite act or omission		Code s 134 was considered by Sedley J in Kennet District Council v Young & Ors [1998] EWHC Admin 938
394		136	assessor		In the Comment on Code s 136, add to the note on p. 394 a reference to Mastercigars Direct Ltd v Withers LLP [2008] 3 All ER 417, [2007] EWHC 2733 (Ch), at [129], where Morgan J revealed that his assessors did not agree with parts of his decision.
394		136	recusal		A judge should not recuse himself from further proceedings in a case merely because a decision of his in the case has been reversed on appeal: Re B (children) (sexual abuse: standard of proof) [2008] UKHL 35, [2008] 4 All ER 1, at [81].
5th edition page		Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
Start	End	Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
401	404	139	selective comminution	meaning of	For a case where the trial Judge in effect put to the jury a selective comminution of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 s 5 see R v Ikram and another [2008] EWCA Crim 586, [2008] 4 All ER 253, at [62]. While retaining the essential statutory wording, the Judge ‘disentangled’ the enactment so as to present it to the jury so far as possible in ordinary language.
414		142	drafting error	presumption against	As to the sentence before Example 142.2 see the further example in R v Murray & Anor [2006] NICA 33 (failure to include commencement provision).
422	423	144	cause of action		In the Comment on Code s 144, add to the passage on pp. 422-423 a reference to Legal Services Commission v Rasool [2008] 3 All ER 381, [2008] EWCA Civ 154, at [30] where Ward LJ said ‘a cause of action for a sum recoverable by virtue of an enactment accrues notwithstanding that it remains to be quantified’.
427		146	fact	proof of	As to Code s 146(2) see Re B (children) (sexual abuse: standard of proof) [2008] UKHL 35, [2008] 4 All ER 1 at [2], [32] (‘He is not allowed to sit on the fence’).
458		158	strained construction	reasons justifying	Henry LJ applied Code s 158(a) (repugnancy) in Hyde Park Residence Ltd v Secretary For Environment, Transport & Regions & Anor [2000] EWCA Civ 13 at [34].
458	463	158	strained construction	reasons justifying	Code s 158 was applied by the Singapore High Court in Chang Mei Wah Selena and Others v Wiener Robert Lorenz and Others and Other Matters [2008] SGHC 97 at para. 20.
470		163	counter-intuitive readings		To the references to counter-intuitive readings at lines 3-4 and footnote 2, add: Giles v Rhind [2008] EWCA Civ 118, [2008] 3 All ER 697, at [17]. See also 5th edn page 1091 n3.
472		164	intention, legislative	fictitious, whether	The Federal Court of Australia upheld the validity of Code s 164 in NAAV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228 at [432]-[433].
477		166	intention, legislative	duplex approach to	The Federal Court of Australia upheld the validity of Code s 166 in NAAV v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCAFC 228 at [432]-[433].
484		171	political factors	enactment, behind	With regard to the words preceding Example 171.1 see Schiemann LJ’s comment that the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 ‘clearly represents a compromise between a variety of commercial and political considerations’ : Dale Farm Dairy Group Ltd (t/a Northern Dairies) v Akram & Ors [1997] EWCA Civ 2125.
488		172	ellipsis (the Index entry should not be italicised)		As to the passage on pp. 488-489 see In re UK Waste Management[1999] NICA 2; [1999] NI 183; at para. 24.
491	494	173	implication	legitimacy of	The Australian Judge Merkel J, citing Code s 173, said: ‘it has been long accepted that the legal meaning of an enactment includes what is necessarily or properly implied so as to give effect to the legislative intention gleaned from the language used (Chun Wang v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1997] FCA 70). See also Re Application by the Local Government Auditor [2003] NIQB 21 at [11], [12].
494		174	implication	legitimacy of	In Shantha Karunaratna Jayasinghe v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs & Anor [1997] FCA 551 the Federal Court of Australia said: ‘The threshold of “necessity” has been rejected in favour of the formulation that the implication be “proper”. In Austereo Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1993) 41 FCR 1 French and Beazley JJ accepted as a correct formulation the following passage in Bennion . . . ’ (the FCA went on to cite the passage at Code p 495 beginning ‘The question of whether an implication should be found within the express words of an enactment depends . . .’ and ending ‘Where the point is doubtful it will, as always in interpretation, call for a weighing and balancing of the relevant factors’). See Austereo Limited v Trade Practices Commission [1993] FCA 301 at [53].
497		174	Attorney General v Great Eastern Railway Co., rule in		See Re Application by Local Government Auditor [2005] NIQB 52.
498	499	174	implication	limitation on express words, of	In Aiden Shipping Co v Interbulk [1986] AC 965 at 981 Lord Goff said: ‘Courts of first instance are, I believe, well capable of exercising their discretion under [the Supreme Court Act 1981 s 51] in accordance with reason and justice. I cannot imagine any case arising in which some order for costs is made, in the exercise of the court’s discretion, against some person who has no connection with the proceedings in question. If any problem arises, the Court of Appeal can lay down principles for the guidance of judges of first instance, or the Supreme Court Rule Committee can propose amendments of the Rules of the Supreme Court for the purpose of controlling the exercise of the statutory power vested in [a] judge subject to rules of court’. On the above dictum see Dolphin Quays Development Ltd v Mills and others [2008] EWCA Civ 385, [2008] 4 All ER 56, at [3].
499		175	implication	related law, affecting	As to Code s. 175 see Davidson, Re Application For Judicial Review [2001] ScotCS 293, at [24].
5th edition page		Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
Start	End	Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
504		177	interstitial articulation	meaning of	It should be noted that an interstitial articulation is not concerned with improving the drafting of the enactment in question. It keeps to the official wording except so far as is needed to express clearly the rival legal meanings. Defects in that wording, such as unnecessary repetition, should therefore be ignored. An interstitial articulation is directed solely to bringing out a possible operative legal meaning of the enactment.
505		179	interstitial articulation	examples of	Lord Bingham of Cornhill gave a striking example of interstitial articulation by the court when he spelt out a restrictive addition to the power of the Secretary of State under the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 s. 19(3)(b) (permission to marry): R (on the application of Baiai and another v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Nos 1 and 2) [2008] UKHL 53, [2008] 3 All ER 1094, at [32].
505		179	interstitial articulation	examples of	Another example of interstitial articulation by the court is found in Perrin and another v Northampton Borough Council and others [2008] EWCA Civ 1353, [2008] 4 All ER 673, at [56].
517		182	strict and liberal construction		The passage on mixed consequences at the foot of p. 517 was approved by O’Higgins J in Mullins v Hartnett [1998] 4 IR 426.
521		185	interpretative factors	consistent result from, effect of	Code s. 185 was applied in Nangles Nurseries -v- Commissioners of Valuation [2008] IEHC 73 at para. 41.
544		193	statutory interpretation	basic rule	The wording of Code s 193 was approved by the Supreme Court of Ireland in Maguire v DPP [2004] IESC 53.
551		197	commonsense construction rule		The wording of Code s 197 was approved: (1) by McGuinness J in Quinlivan v Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1998] 2 IR 113; (2) by O’Higgins J in Mullins v Hartnett [1998] 4 IR 426; (3) by Kearns J in Lawlor v Mr Justice Flood [1999] 3 IR 107.
			commonsense construction rule	examples of application of	As to Code s 197 see Billig, Re Application for Judicial Review [2006] ScotCS CSOH_148 at [35] (para xvi of Respondent’s submissions).
			commonsense construction rule	nature of	See Quinlivan v. Governor of Portlaoise Prison [1997] IEHC 181; [1998] 2 IR 113 at paras. 48, 49.
555	556	197	greater includes less		This principle was applied by the Supreme Court of New South Wales in ASIC v Oliver Banovec (No. 2) [2007] NSWSC 961 at [28].
562	564	199	definition, statutory	potency of term defined	See Optos Plc v Revenue & Customs [2006] UKSPC SPC00560 at para. 127.
565		199	definition, statutory	substantive effect, having	The passage in the middle of Code p 565 was applied by the Court of Appeal of the Northern Territory of Australia in Michael Munn v Agus & Anor (1997) 6 NTLR 84, [1997] NTSC 3, at [33].
570		199	definition, statutory	clarifying	The dictum from IRC v Parker was applied in Health Service Executive -v- Commissioner for Valuation [2008] IEHC 178 at para. 9.
572		199	definition, statutory	referential	As to the passage on referential definitions on Code p. 572 see Elizabeth Court (Bournemouth) Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKSPC SPC00648. See also (in this table) the entry relating to incorporation by reference.
573	574	199	definition, statutory	enlarging	An example of an enlarging definition (see pp 573-574) which gives an unexpected meaning for a term is provided by the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 s 6(1). This bleakly says ‘Girl includes woman’. The practice dealt with by the Act is commonly inflicted on girls around the age of seven, so the drafter uses ‘girl’ rather than ‘woman’ throughout the Act. This overlooks the potency of the term defined (see pp 562-564), which could give the defence an argument if the victim were a woman of advanced years.
576		200	Interpretation Act 1978	general	Commenting on the sentence on p. 576 ‘An Interpretation Act does not operate in such a way as to change the essential effect of an enactment to which it applies.’ David Dodd says in Statutory Interpretation in Ireland (Tottel, 2008) p. 254: ‘That holds weight in respect of Interpretation Acts where the purpose is to collect generally applicable definitions and terms. Provisions of the [Irish] Interpretation Act 2005, however, go much further than this “traditional” function of Interpretation Acts.’
585	588	201	informed interpretation	rule	Code s. 201 was applied in Johnston Publishing (North) Ltd & Ors v Revenue & Customs [2006] UKSPC SPC00564 at para. 74. See also David Dodd, Statutory Interpretation in Ireland (Tottel, 2008) pp. 206-207 (n. 9).
599	604	210(3)	Barras principle		The Barras principle as explained here was applied in BBC Scotland v Souster [2001] IRLR 150, [2000] ScotCS 308, at [28].
599	604	210(3)	Barras principle		For an application of the Barras principle where Parliament had ‘adopted’ an erroneous decision see A v Hoare and other appeals [2008] UKHL 6, [2008] 2 All ER 1, at [15].
599		210	pre-Act law, the [new entry, not in fifth edition]		Code s 210 was followed by Peter Gibson LJ in Ward v Chief Adjudication Officer [1998] EWCA Civ 1552.
5th edition page		Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
Start	End	Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
603	604	210	in pari materia, Acts		The words ‘if two Acts are in pari materia it will be assumed that universality of language and meaning was intended’ (see p. 603) were approved by Costello P. in Action Aid Ltd v Revenue Commissioners [1997] IEHC 196.
					The passage on pp. 603-604 was described as ‘illuminating’ by Cranston J in R (on the application of Mahamed) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2008] EWHC 1312 (Admin), para. 27.
					See also DPP v Power [2007] IESC 31.
610		213	government department	Act, in charge of	As to preparatory acts by a government department in anticipation of the passing of a Bill see R (on the application of Shrewsbury and Atcham Borough Council and another) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Shropshire County Council, interested party) [2008] EWCA Civ 148, [2008] 3 All ER 548.
616		217(7)	estoppel	executive	For an approving comment by Sinha J of the Indian Supreme Court on the article by FB from which Code s 217(7) is derived see R & B Fallon Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal (civil) 3326 of 2008) at para. 25.
620	621	217	Pepper v Hart, rule in	judicial application of	Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury: ‘. . . I do not think this is one of those rare cases where recourse to ministerial statements is appropriate’. As an example of 2008 practice see the whole of this dictum in Lewisham London Borough Council v Malcolm [2008] UKHL 43, [2008] 4 All ER 525, at [154].
645	652	220	exclusionary rule, the	reasons for	For an important case concluding that in Ireland as a matter of judicial policy no sufficient grounds have been established for abolishing or qualifying the established exclusionary rule concerning recourse to parliamentary proceedings see Crilly v. T. & J. Farrington Ltd. [2001] IESC 60; [2002] 1 ILRM 161.
680	682	220	exclusionary rule, the	control of its procedure by court and	Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers CJ referred to ‘a body of material drawn to our attention which was not strictly admissible as an aid to statutory construction’: R v Zafar and others [2008] EWCA Crim 184, [2008] 4 All ER 46, at [31].
5th edition page		Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
Start	End	Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
708	710	234	in pari materia, Acts		Code s 234 was followed by Peter Gibson LJ in Ward v Chief Adjudication Officer [1998] EWCA Civ 1552. See also Halcyon Films LLP v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKSPC SPC00696 at para. 83.
710		235	sub-rules		Code s. 235 was applied in F. -v- Minister for Health and Children [2008] IESC 16.
711		235	tacit legislation		On this discussion of tacit legislation see the Hong Kong case of Kao Lee & Yip (a firm) v Lau Wing & Anor [2008] HKCU 1667 at [35], [36], http://law.lexisnexis.com/webcenters/hk/Daily-Cases/Kao-Lee--Yip-a-firm-v-Lau-Wing--Anor
723		242	proviso, nature of		The wording of Code s 242 was approved by Laffoy J in Comptroller and Auditor General v Ireland [1997] 1 IR 248.
727		245	long title	interpretative use of	See David Dodd, Statutory Interpretation in Ireland (Tottel, 2008) p. 46.
745		255	heading	interpretation by reference to	Code s 255 was applied in ETI Euro Telecom International NV v Republic of Bolivia & Anor [2008] EWCA Civ 880 at [70].
747		256	section name (sidenote, heading or title)	interpretation by reference to	Code s 256 was followed by Simon Brown LJ in R (on the application of Perry & Anor v Secretary Of State For Social Security & Anor [1998] EWCA Civ 1117. See also Re Application by the Local Government Auditor [2003] NIQB 21 at [16].
758		259	incorporation by reference	nature of	As to Code s. 259 see Elizabeth Court (Bournemouth) Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKSPC SPC00648. See also (in this table) the entry relating to definition, statutory, referential
759	761	260	incorporation by reference	archival drafting	With regard to Code s 260(2), there may be a contrary intention disapplying ‘freezing’ in the case of an Act applying a body of law for constitutional purposes. See eg Chamberlains v Lai [2006] NZSC 70 at [86] (application of English law in New Zealand).
769	786	263	legal policy	nature of	A particular principle of legal policy may form part of some branch of the law, eg the law of defamation: see Curistan v Times Newspapers Ltd [2008] EWCA Civ 432, [2008] 3 All ER 923, at [80].
793		264	illegality	fraud	The term ‘fraud’ may be used in the common law sense or the equitable sense of ‘unconscionable’: see Giles v Rhind [2008] EWCA Civ 118, [2008] 3 All ER 697, at [44].
795		265	justice	law should serve	As to Code s. 265 see Martin, Application for judicial review [2000] NIQB 8 at para. 20.
5th edition page		Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
Start	End	Code Section No.	Main index entry	Relevant sub-entry (if any)	Note
804		266	user of legislation		This topic is further dealt with in FB’s 2008 article ‘Is Law Still A Learned Profession?’
822	823