Introduction

• judges may look at other words in the statute to ascertain meaning of specific words
• can be used in conjunction with all rules
• guiding principles have evolved, known as rules of language

Ejusdem generis

• of the same kind
• used if specific words are followed by general words
• the general words are limited to things of the same kind

  Powell v Kempton Park Race Course (1899)

  • Betting Act 1853: prohibited the keeping of a house, office, room or other place for betting
  • held list of words indicated that other place should be regarded as an indoor place
  • outdoor ring at a racecourse was held not to fall within terms

  Allen v Emerson [1944]

  • must be at least two specific words in a list before the general word or phrase for rule to operate

Evaluation

• most commonly used
• no requirement for the draftsman to write an exhaustive list
• leaves room for interpretation to adapt and evolve with time
• can create uncertainty as unpredictable how things will be categorised

  R v Kensington & Chelsea LBC ex p Kihara (1996)

  • four homeless asylum seekers claimed that they were a priority need for housing due to extreme financial hardship
  • Housing Act 1985: gave priority to those who are vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason
  • held that financial hardship could be classed as other special reason despite the statute referring to physical & mental needs

Noscitur a sociis

• a word is known by the company it keeps
• words must be read in context

  Pengelley v Bell Punch Ltd [1964]

  • Factories Act 1961: floors, steps, stairs, passageways and gangways had to be kept free from obstruction
  • held list indicated a passage so a floor used exclusively for storage did not fall within the Act

  Bourne v Norwich Crematorium [1967]

  • Stamp J: .. words derive colour from those which surround them...

Evaluation

• no requirement for the draftsman to write an exhaustive list of everything included (same as Ejusdem Generis)
• allows judicial development of law which can be criticised as undemocratic

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

• the mention of one thing excludes the other
• if there is a list of words which is not followed by general words
• the Act will only apply to items in list

  R v Inhabitants of Sedgley (1831)

  • Poor Relief Act 1601: levied taxes on lands, houses and coal mines
  • held could not be levied on other types of mines

  R v SS for Home Department ex p Crew [1982]

  • Immigration Act 1971: definitions section mentioned rights of mother only
  • held to exclude father

Evaluation:

• finite list is provided creates legal certainty
• judges apply law as explicitly written, upholding separation of powers principle
• rigid with no scope to include novel or unforeseen situations