DOCSLIB.ORG

The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 21) (SCOT. LAW COM. No. 11) THE WTERPRETATION OF STATUTE§ Laid before Parliament by the Lord High Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 9th June 1969 LONDON HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE Reprinted 1 9 7 4 256 4Op net The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law other than the law of Scotland or of any law of Northern Ireland which the Parliament of Northern Ireland has power to amend. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr. Justice Scarman, O.B.E., Chairman. Mr. L. C. B. Gower. Mr. Neil Lawson, Q.C. Mr. Norman S. Marsh, Q.C. Mr. Andrew Martin, Q.C. Mr. Arthur Stapleton Cotton is a special consultant to the Commission. The Secretary of the Commission is Mr. J. M. Cartwright Sharp, and its offices are at Lacon House, Theobald’s Road, London, W.C.l. The Scottish Law Commission was set up by section 2 of the Law Com- missions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the Law of Scotland. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Kilbrandon, Chairman. Professor A. E. Anton. Professor J. M. Halliday. Mr. A. M. Johnston, Q.C. Professor T. B. Smith, Q.C. I The Secretary of the Commission is Mr. A. G. Brand, M.B.E. Its offices are at the Old College, University of Edinburgh, South Bridge, Edinburgh, 8. CONTENTS Page ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF ENACTMENTS . iv CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF ENACTMENTS . vi TABLE OF CASES .x Paragraphs Page I INTRODUCTION . 1-3 1 I1 THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF THE PROBLEM . 4 - 16 3 111 THE RELEVANCE OF COMPARATIVE MATERIAL 17 - 20 12 IV THE FUNCTION OF “RULES” AND “PRE SUMPTIONS ” IN INTERPRETATION . 21 - 39 14 (1) The Mischief Rule, the Golden Rule and the Literal Rule (i) Historical Development . 22 - 28 14 (ii) Criticism of the Rules . 29 - 33 17 (2) Presumptions . 34 - 39 21 V THE CONTEXTS OF A STATUTORY PROVISION 40 - 62 25 (1) The Context provided by the Statute . 41 - 45 25 (2) Contexts outside the Statute (i) Material other than Parliamentary History . 46 - 52 27 (ii) The Parliamentary History of an Act . 53 - 62 31 VI SPECIALLY PREPARED MATERIAL EXPLAIN- ING LEGISLATION . 63 - 73 38 VI1 TREATIES AND THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES. 74 - 76 44 VI11 THE INTERPRETATION OF DELEGATED LEGIS- LATION . 77 - 78 46 IX STJMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOM- MENDATIONS . 79 - 82 48 APPENDIXA: Draft Clauses . 51 APPENDIXB : Organizations and Individuals who have given Advice or Information to the Law Commissions . 52 APPENDIXC: Selective Bibliography . 55 iii ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF ENACTMENTS Enactments Case Reference Paragraph Footnote Animals Order 1871 Gorris v. Scott (1874) 172 L.R. 9 Ex 125 Armed Forces Act 1966 - 155 Building Regulations Riddell v. Reid 75 (S.R. & O., 1926 No. 738) 1942 S.C. (H.L.) 51 ; sub nom. Potts or Riddell v. Reid [1943] A.C.1 Building (Safety, Price v. Claudgen Ltd. 15 Health and Welfare) 1967 S.C. (H.L.) 18. Regulations, S.I. 1948, No. 1966 S.L.T.; [19671 1145, Regs. 2(1) and 24(1) 1 W.L.R. 575 Lawson v. J. S. Harvey & Co. Ltd. 1968 S.L.T. (Sh. Ct.) 24 Carriage by Air Act 1932 Samuel Montagu and Co. 24 Ltd. v. Swiss Air Transport Co. Ltd. [1966] 2 Q.B. 306 Carriage of Goods by Brown & Co. v. T. & J. 54 Sea Act 1924 Harrison (1927) 96 L.J. K.B. 1025 Civil Aviation Act 1949, s.8 157 Consumer Protection Act 93 1961, s.3(1) Contagious Diseases Gorris v. Scott (1874) 172 (Animals) Act 1869 L.R. 9 Ex 125 Copyright Act 1956, Warwick Film Productions 34 s.20(4) Ltd. v. Eisinger and Others [1967] 3 W.L.R. 1599 Customs and Excise Salomon v. Commissioners 24 Act 1952, s.258(1) of Customs and Excise and Schedule 6, [1967] 2 Q.B. 116 paras. l(1) and 2 Dangerous Drugs Act 148 1964, s.g(l)(b) Dangerous Drugs Act Sweet v. Parsley 91 1965, s.5(b) 119681 2 W.L.R. 1360; 148 [1969] 2 W.L.R. 470 Factories Act 1937, Carr v. The Decca Gramophone 82 s.130(2) Co. Ltd. [1947] K.B. 728 Factories Act 1948, s.10 - 82 Factories Act 1961, Wright v. Ford Motor Co. 82 ss.14(1), 143, Ltd. [1967] 1 Q.B. 230 155(1) and 155(2) Factory and Workshop Riddell v. Reid - Act 1901 1942 S.C. (H.L.) 51 ; sub nom. Potts or Riddell v. Reid [1943] A.C.1 Finance Act 1920, Assam Railways and 15 s.27(1) as amended Trading Company Ltd. by Finance Act 1927 v. Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1935]-A.C. 445 iv ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF ENACTMENTS-continued Enactments Case Reference Paragraph Footnote Finance (No. 2) Collco Dealings Ltd. v. 166 Act 1955, s.4(2) Inland Revenue Commissioners [1962] A.C. 1 Income Tax Act 1952, Bourne v. Norwich 13 ss.266 and 271 Crematorium Ltd. [1967] 1 W.L.R. 691 Interpretation Act 1888 - (New Zealand) Interpretation Act 1889 - Interpretation Act - (" Acts Interpretation Act ") 1924, s.56) (New Zealand) Interpretation Act 1952, 79 s.15 (Canada) Interpretation Act 178 (Northern Ireland) 1954 Interpretation Act 1960, 81 s.19 (Ghana) Interpretation and i 78 General Clauses Ordinance 1966 (Hong Kong) Interpretation Act 1967, 79 ss.10 and 11 (Canada) Interpretation Act 1967, 176 s.8(5) (Nova Scotia) Law of Property Act 1925, Beswick v. Beswick 124 s.56 [1968] A.C. 58 Limitation Act 1963 Cozens v. North Devon - H ospi t a1 Management Committee; Hunter v. Turners (Soham) Ltd. [I9661 2 Q.B. 318 Locomotives on Highways Phillips v. Britannia 172 Act 1896 Hygienic Laundry Co. Ltd. [1923] 2 K.B. 832 Maintenance Orders R. v. Wilson Ex parte 148 Act 1950, s.27(2) Pereira [I9531 I Q.B. 59 Medicines Act 1968, - 93 s. 133(2) Motor Cars (Use and Phillips v. Britannia 172 Construction) Order Hygienic Laundry Co. 1904 Ltd. [1923] 2 K.B. 832 National Insurance Decision No. R(G) 3/58 of 170 (Claims and Payments) 15 May 1958 of a Amendment Regulations Tribunal of National 1957, S.I. No. 578, Reg. 3 Insurance Commissioners Official Secrets Act 1920, R. v. Oakes [I9591 - s.7 2 Q.B. 350 Poor Law Amendment Whiteley v. ChappeIl 66 Act 1851, s.3 (1868) L.R. 4 Q.B. 147 V L.C.--I. ALPHABETICAL TABLE OF ENACTMENTS-continued Enactments Case Reference Paragraph Footnote Prevention of Accidents London and North-Eastern 30 15 Rules 1902, Rule 9 Railway Company v. 40 Berriman 119461 A.C. 278 62 Protection of Birds Partridge v. Crittenden - 66 Act 1954, s.6(1) [1968] 1 W.L.R. 1204 and Schedule 4 Radioactive Substances 93 Act 1960, s. 19(5)(a) Representation of the 93 People Act 1949, ssSO(2) and 51(2) Resale Prices Act 1964, 93 s.4(2) Restriction of Offensive Fisher v.Bell 119611 - 66 Weapons Act 1959, s.l(l) 1 Q.B. 394 Restriction of Offensive 66 Weapons Act 1961 Restrictive Trade Practices 93 Act 1968, s.7(2) Sex Disqualification Viscountess Rhondda’s - 153 (Removal) Act 1919, s.1 Claim [1922] 2 A.C. 339 Territorial Waters Order Post Office v. Estuary 12 35 in Council 1964 Radio Ltd. 166 [1968] 2 Q.B. 740 175 Trade Disputes Act 1906, Rookes v. Barnard - 152 s.3 [I9641 A.C. 1129 Water Resources Act - - 93 1963, s.l35(8)(a) Workmen’s Compensation - 55 135 Act 1897, s.l(l) CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF ENACTMENTS Date Enactments Case Reference Paragraph Footnote 1851 Poor Law Amendment Whiteley v. Chappell - 66 Act (14 and 15 (1868) L.R. 4 Q.B. Vict., c.105), s.3 147 1869 Contagious Diseases Gorris v. Scott (1 874), - 172 (Animals) Act L.R. 9 Ex. 125 (32 and 33 Vict. c.70) 1871 Animals Order Gorris v. Scott - 172 (see above) 1888 Interpretation Act - 33 - (52 Vict. No. 15) (New Zealand) 1889 Interpretation Act - 77 - (52 and 53 Vict. c.63) 82 1896 Locomotives on Highways Phillips v. Britannia - 172 Act (59 and 60 Vict. Hygienic Laundry c.38) Co. Ltd. [1923] 2 K.B. 832 1897 Workmen’s Compensation - 55 135 Act (60 and 61 Vict., c.37), s.l(l) vi CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF ENACTMENTS- -continued Date Enactments Case Reference Paragraph Footnote 1901 Factory and Workshop Riddell v. Reid 32 - Act (1 Edw. 7, c.22) 1942, S.C. (H.L.) 51; sub nom. Potts or Riddell v. Reid [1943] A.C. 1 1902 Prevention of London and North- 30 15 Accidents Rules Eastern Railway 40 (S.R. and 0. 1902 Company v. Berriman 62 No. 616), Rule 9 [1946] A.C. 278 1904 Motor Cars (Use and Phillips v. Britannia - 172 Construction) Order Hygienic Laundry Co. (S.R. and 0. 1904 Ltd. [1923] 2 K.B. No. 315) 832 1906 Trade Disputes Act Rookes v. Barnard - 152 (6 Edw. 7, c.47), s.3 [1964] A.C. 1129 1919 Sex Disqualification Viscountess Rhondda’s - 153 (Removal) Act (9 Claim [1922] 2 A.C. and 10 Geo. 5, 339 c.71), s.1 1920 Finance Act (1 0 and Assam Railways and 50 15 11 Geo. 5, c.18), Trading Co. Ltd.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Early Understandings of the "Judicial Power" in Statutory Interpretation
    ARTICLE ALL ABOUT WORDS: EARLY UNDERSTANDINGS OF THE 'JUDICIAL POWER" IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, 1776-1806 William N. Eskridge, Jr.* What understandingof the 'judicial Power" would the Founders and their immediate successors possess in regard to statutory interpretation? In this Article, ProfessorEskridge explores the background understandingof the judiciary's role in the interpretationof legislative texts, and answers earlier work by scholars like ProfessorJohn Manning who have suggested that the separation of powers adopted in the U.S. Constitution mandate an interpre- tive methodology similar to today's textualism. Reviewing sources such as English precedents, early state court practices, ratifying debates, and the Marshall Court's practices, Eskridge demonstrates that while early statutory interpretationbegan with the words of the text, it by no means confined its searchfor meaning to the plain text. He concludes that the early practices, especially the methodology ofJohn Marshall,provide a powerful model, not of an anticipatory textualism, but rather of a sophisticated methodology that knit together text, context, purpose, and democratic and constitutionalnorms in the service of carrying out the judiciary's constitutional role. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................... 991 I. Three Nontextualist Powers Assumed by English Judges, 1500-1800 ............................................... 998 A. The Ameliorative Power .............................. 999 B. Suppletive Power (and More on the Ameliorative Pow er) .............................................. 1003 C. Voidance Power ..................................... 1005 II. Statutory Interpretation During the Founding Period, 1776-1791 ............................................... 1009 * John A. Garver Professor ofJurisprudence, Yale Law School. I am indebted toJohn Manning for sharing his thoughts about the founding and consolidating periods; although we interpret the materials differently, I have learned a lot from his research and arguments.
    [Show full text]
  • Statutory Construction in Florida: in Search of a Principled Approach
    STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION IN FLORIDA: IN SEARCH OF A PRINCIPLED APPROACH Peter D. Webster Sylvia H. Walbolt Christine R. Davis I. INTRODUCTION .......................................... 437 II. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION BY THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY ................. 447 A. The Polestar of Statutory Construction—Legislative Intent............................................... 448 B. Competing Canons of Statutory Construction ........ 449 1. Knowles v. Beverly Enterprises—Florida, Inc. 451 2. Delgado v. State ............................... 457 3. Donato v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.............................................. 461 4. B.C. v. Florida Department of Children & Families........................................ 463 5. Malu v. Security National Insurance Company . 465 6. State v. Goode ................................. 468 7. American Home Assurance Co. v. Plaza Materials Corp. ................................ 470 8. State v. Paul ................................... 476 9. Sarkis v. Allstate Insurance Co.................. 482 10. Horowitz v. Plantation General Hospital Limited Partnership .................................... 484 C. Whose Rule of Statutory Construction is the Best Rule?............................................... 487 III. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION AND THE DOCTRINE OF SEPARATION OF POWERS ................................ 494 A. The Need for Restraint ............................. 497 B. Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States—A Court Run Amok? ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • MEDICINES ACT 2003 Chapter 4
    © Copyright Treasury of the Isle of Man Crown Copyright reserved See introductory page for restrictions on copying and reproduction MEDICINES ACT 2003 Chapter 4 Arrangement of sections PART 1 DEALINGS WITH MEDICINAL PRODUCTS 1. Introductory. 2. Restrictions on dealing with medicinal products. 3. Exemptions. 4. General sale of medicinal products. 5. Medicinal products on prescription only. 6. Regulations: general provisions. PART 2 CONSUMER PROTECTION 7. Adulteration of medicinal products. 8. Protection of purchasers of medicinal products. 9. Compliance with published standards. 10. Misleading descriptions etc. 11. Display of information on automatic machines. 12. Offences. PART 3 PROMOTION OF SALES OF MEDICINAL PRODUCTS 13. False or misleading advertisements and representations. 14. Advertisements requiring consent. 15. Regulation of advertisements and representations. 16. Advertisements and representations directed to practitioners. 17. Interpretation. PART 4 ENFORCEMENT 18. Enforcement etc. 19. Rights of entry. 20. Power to inspect, take samples and seize goods and records. 1 Medicines Act 2003 21. Application of sampling procedure to substance or article seized under s. 20. 22. Obstruction etc. 23. Analysis of samples in other cases. 24. Liability to forfeiture. 25. Restrictions on disclosure of information. 26. Contravention due to default of other person. 27. Warranty as defence. 28. Offences in relation to warranties and certificates of analysis. 29. Offences: general. 30. Presumptions. PART 5 VETERINARY MEDICINAL PRODUCTS AND ANIMAL FEEDING STUFFS 31. Veterinary medicinal products. 32. Application of Parts 1 to 4 to veterinary medicinal products. 33. Medicated animal feeding stuffs. 34. Animal feeding stuffs: enforcement. PART 6 PHARMACIES Conduct of retail pharmacy business 35. Retail pharmacy business. 36.
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of the National Rivers Authority the Law of the National Rivers Authority
    NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY NRA by Centre for Law in Rural A reas U.C.W. Aberystwyth Notional Rivers Aumortty Information Centre [Head Office Class No m Accossion No National Information Centre The Environment Agency Rio House Waterside Drive Aztec West BRISTOL BS12 4UD Due for return THE LAW OF THE NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY THE LAW OF THE NATIONAL RIVERS AUTHORITY by WILLIAM HOWARTH B.A., LL.M. Director of the Centre for Law in Rural Areas and Lecturer in Law, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth The National Rivers Authority and the Centre for Law in Rural Areas, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth 1990 © W illiam Howarth 1990 ISBN 1 872662 00 5 Published by The National Rivers Authority and the Centre for Law in Rural Areas, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth Copies of this work may be obtained from: The Director, Centre for Law in Rural Areas, University College of Wales, Aberystwyth, Dyfed, SY23 3DZ. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior permission of the copyright holder. Printed by Cambrian Printers, Aberystwyth. FOREWORD The Water Act 1989 brings about a dramatic restructuring of the water industry in England and Wales through an overall separation of the responsibilities for utility and regulatory functions in relation to water. This division of the industry will allow a greater degree of specialism to be developed, and ultimately will prove more effective both in satisfying the needs of water consumers and also in safeguarding in general aquatic environment.
    [Show full text]
  • Statute Law Repeals: Twentieth Report Draft Statute Law (Repeals) Bill
    2015: 50 years promoting law reform Statute Law Repeals: Twentieth Report Draft Statute Law (Repeals) Bill LC357 / SLC243 The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission (LAW COM No 357) (SCOT LAW COM No 243) STATUTE LAW REPEALS: TWENTIETH REPORT DRAFT STATUTE LAW (REPEALS) BILL Presented to Parliament by the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice by Command of Her Majesty Laid before the Scottish Parliament by the Scottish Ministers June 2015 Cm 9059 SG/2015/60 © Crown copyright 2015 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. Print ISBN 9781474119337 Web ISBN 9781474119344 ID 20051507 05/15 49556 19585 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ii The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission were set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Lloyd Jones, Chairman Professor Elizabeth Cooke1 Stephen Lewis Professor David Ormerod QC Nicholas Paines QC. The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Elaine Lorimer. The Law Commission is located at 1st Floor, Tower, 52 Queen Anne’s Gate, London SW1H 9AG The Scottish Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Lord Pentland, Chairman Caroline Drummond David Johnston QC Professor Hector L MacQueen Dr Andrew J M Steven The Chief Executive of the Scottish Law Commission is Malcolm McMillan.
    [Show full text]
  • Parliamentary Debates in Statutory Interpretation: a Question Of
    Parliamentary Debates in Statutory Interpretation:A Question of Admissibilityor of Weight? St6phane Beaulac" The exclusionary rule which prohibits references La r~gle qui exclue l'utilisation des debats parle- to parliamentary materials as an aid to statutory inter- mentaires comme outil d'interpr6tation legislative a te pretation has been applied for decades in most common appliqude pendant des d6cennies dans la plupart des ju- law jurisdictions. The House of Lords handed down its ridictions de common law jusqu'a la decision de prin- fundamental decision in Pepper v. Hartwhich allowed cipe du comit6 d'appel de la House ofLords dans Pep- reference to parliamentary debates in limited circum- per c. Hart. L'auteur examine d'abord les origines an- stances. glaises de la r~gle d'exclusion ainsi que ses applica- The author first examines the English origins of tions dans d'autres juridictions de common law telles the exclusionary rule as well as its application in other I'Australie, la Nouvelle-Z6lande, les ttats-Unis et le 1998 CanLIIDocs 38 common law jurisdictions, including Australia, New Canada. L'auteur commente aussi la situation dans le Zealand, the United States and Canada. The author also syst~me de droit civil qu6b6cois. L'exclusion des d6- comments on the situation prevailing in Quebec's civil bats parlementaires est ensuite consid6r6e dans le con- law system. The exclusion of parliamentary debates is texte plus global des m6thodes et des principes then considered in the broader context of the methods d'interpretation legislative. and principles of statutory construction. L'auteur soutient que l'utilisation des d6bats par- The author contends that the issue of parliamen- lementaires dans l'interpretation legislative est une tary debates in statutory interpretation is a question of question de poids plutft que d'admissibilite.
    [Show full text]
  • National Rivers Authority
    National Rivers Authority Seminar On Water Pollution Control fvjfUV ffo Y- 8 APPENDIX II (4.1.91.) N.R.A. LEGAL TRAINING ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY STAFF POLLUTION PROSECUTIONS SEMBIAfl DAY ONE PROGRAMME PRESENTER 9.30. REGISTRATION & COFFEE 9.50. INTRODUCTION to COURSE REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGER or his nominee 10.00. The WATER ACT 1989: TERRY WILLIAMS History COPA Part II Part III Chapter I 10. 20. SPECIAL STATUTORY PROVISIONS: DAVID BATHERS & PETER MITCHESON Offence & Defence or Powers of Entry MARTIN DAVIES 5 TERRY WILLIAMS Sampling (inc Continuity) S & FF Act 1975 Sect 4 Prohibition Notices 11.15. * * Coffee * * 11.30. CASE LAW TERRY WILLIAMS Impress Worcester Alphacell Price v Cromack Wrothwell Pegrum Express Foods McTay 12.05. Costs & Compensation DAVID BATHERS or JOHN BARFORD 12.25. POLICE & CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT MARTIN DAVIES or PETER MITCHESON 12.45. * * Lunch * * 2.00pm. SAMPLING PROCEDURES To be nominated by REM 3.00 PREPARATION of EVIDENCE DAVID BATHERS or JOHN BARFORD for COURT 3.20. * ♦ Tea * * 3.40. PRESENTATION of EVIDENCE in TERRY WILLIAMS COURT & CONDUCT of CASE 4.00. PITFALLS/LESSONS to be LEARNT All Legal Presenters 5.00. SYNDICATE WORK for MOCK TRIAL TERRY WILLIAMS on « Day Two 5.30 DISPERSE DAY TWO PROGRAMME PRESENTER A.M. MOCK TRIAL: TERRY WILLIAMS & ANOTHER LEGAL PRESENTER 9.30 CASE for the PROSECUTION 10.30. * * Coffee * * 10.45. CASE for PROSECUTION continued 11.15. CASE for the DEFENCE 12.15 SUMMING UP BY THE PROSECUTION 12.25. " " M DEFENCE 12.35. JUDGEMENT 12.45. * * Lunch * * 1.50pm. REVIEW of MOCK TRIAL TERRY WILLIAMS 2.00 TOPIC(S) of INTEREST To be nominated by REM to be selected by REM 3.00.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources Act 1963
    Changes to legislation: There are currently no known outstanding effects for the Water Resources Act 1963. (See end of Document for details) Water Resources Act 1963 1963 CHAPTER 38 An Act to provide for the establishment of river authorities and a Water Resources Board, to confer on them, and on the Minister of Housing and Local Government, new functions in relation to water resources in England and Wales, and to provide for the transfer to river authorities of functions previously exercisable by river boards and other bodies; to make further provision for controlling the abstraction and impounding of water, for imposing charges in respect of licences to abstract or impound water, and for securing the protection and proper use of inland waters and water in underground strata; to enable corresponding provision to be made in relation to the Thames and Lee catchment areas and certain other areas in or adjacent to London; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid. [31st July 1963] Extent Information E1 For the extent of this Act see s. 137(2)(3) Modifications etc. (not altering text) C1 Act extended by S.I. 1972/971, Sch. 1 Pt. A C2 The base date version of this Act is as revised to 1.12.1991 and takes into account the effects (if any) on it of consolidating legislation which came into force at that date. C3 Act modified by S.I. 1974/607, art. 13(1)(2) C4 Act modified by Channel Tunnel Act 1987 (c. 53, SIF 102), s. 6, Sch. 2 Pt. II para.
    [Show full text]
  • The Medicines Act 1968 Amended
    1 Medicines Act 1968 (c.67) Warning: This content may not be up-to-date. Please check the Update Status Warning message at the top of the Results within Legislation page Medicines Act 1968 1968 c.67 An Act to make new provision with respect to medicinal products and related matters, and for purposes connected therewith. The Medicines Act 1968 does not apply in relation to veterinary medicinal products. The Medicines (Prohibition of Importation and Possession of Veterinary Drugs Order (Northern Ireland) 1977 continues in force notwithstanding, and the Medicines Act 1968 shall continue to apply in so far as is necessary for the operation of that Order 25th October 1968 Medicines Act 1968 ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Part I ........................................................................................................................................................ 6 Administration .................................................................................................................................... 6 1. Ministers responsible for administration of Act ...................................................................... 6 2. …. ............................................................................................................................................ 6 2A. Establishment of the Commission on Human Medicines ..................................................... 6 3. Functions of the Commission
    [Show full text]
  • An Assessment of the Impact of Regulatory Models for Drinking
    An Assessment of the Impact of Regulatory Models for Drinking Water Quality In the UK by Annabelle May Submitted for Doctorate of Philosophy School of Engineering University of Surrey September 2007 © Annabelle May 2007 ProQuest Number: 27607843 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest ProQuest 27607843 Published by ProQuest LLO (2019). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code Microform Edition © ProQuest LLO. ProQuest LLO. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.Q. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346 Abstract The main objectives of this study were to assess the influence of regulation on drinking water quality and to explore how drinking water quality regulation is practiced in other countries to establish if the regulatory paradigm in England and Wales and the regulatory mechanisms used by the Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) have been effective, and finally, whether potential for Improvement exists. Drinking water quality data from Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and Wales was used to aid an assessment of the three regulatory models found in the United Kingdom. The assessment was also Informed by knowledge acquired through practical observation of regulators, interviews with key personnel and a literature review.
    [Show full text]
  • Originalism and Its Discontents
    Spring !"!# Originalism and Its Discontents !"#$%#& #. !'(%! Duke University Course !"#.$% O&ce hours: ! !":#"–!$:$" " !:#"–#:#" https://bit.ly/3hGY50A [email protected] Originalism is a major school of constitutional interpretation and an im- portant !eld of study. Legal discussions and public debates regularly feature originalist arguments or criticisms of originalism. To engage these argu- ments, lawyers and citizens need to weigh the merits of a diverse set of originalist theories. This course is designed to acquaint you with originalist and nonoriginal- ist arguments; to enable you to assess their strengths; and to give you an opportunity to sharpen your own views on the topic. Among other things, it examines a variety of theories (original intentions, original meanings, original methods, original law, and so on), emphases (the “old” originalism vs. the “new”), and forms of argument (conceptual, normative, positive). !"#$% This course meets on Tuesdays. Due to the ongoing pandemic, all sessions will be taught online; the Zoom link is available on the class website, under 2021.01.06.1147 “Resources.” Each session starts promptly at !":#" a.m. Please have the as- signed readings with you, and complete the !rst readings before the !rst class. During the !rst week, our class (like all Tuesday classes) will be held on Thursday, Jan. $!. The %rst response paper is due from all students by & a.m. on the morning of the !rst class session. &"#$'(")% Reading assignments are listed at the end of this syllabus. This course has a coursepack, but no textbook. Electronic copies of the readings are also posted online. The readings are rather extensive, averaging roughly ""# law review pages per class.
    [Show full text]
  • Importance of Statutory Interpretation Statutory Interpretation Is An
    Importance of statutory interpretation Statutory interpretation is an important aspect of the common law. In about half of all reported cases in Australia, the courts are required to rule on the meaning of legislation. Interpretation Acts The meaning of Commonwealth legislation is governed by the provisions in the Acts Interpretations Act (1901). It prescribes the meanings of common terms and provides courts with clear directions to resolve a range of potential inconsistencies. The Traditional (General) Rules – sometimes referred to as Literalism The traditional common-law approach to statutory interpretation was to "look at the words of the Act". This approach was founded on the assumption that the statute alone was a reliable guide to the intent of the Parliament. That is, Parliament said what it means, and means what it said (within the context of the legislation). However, to assist the courts in interpreting legislation, judges relied upon three general rules (REFER SEPARATE DOCUMENT CONCERNING A 4TH RULE – THE MORE THAN RULE). These were the: Literal Rule: The literal rule dictated that the courts gave effect to the "ordinary and natural meaning" of legislation. This Rule was defined by Higgins J, in The Amalgamated Society of Engineers v The Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920). Justice Higgins said “The fundamental rule of interpretation, to which all others are subordinate, is that a statute is to be expounded according to the intent of the Parliament that made it; and that intention has to be found by an examination of the language used in the whole of the statute as a whole. The question is, what does the language mean; and when we find what the language means in it's ordinary and natural sense, it is our duty to obey that meaning, even if we think the result to be inconvenient, impolitic or improbable”.
    [Show full text]