The politics of the common law (Gearey et al.) argues that statutory interpretation can perhaps be best understood as a judicial practice; and judicial practice can be seen as informed by pragmatism and an ‘engagement with the language of Act in question in its legal context.’ The concept of statutory interpretation being a process or a practice is inconsistent with the old idea of thinking in terms of ‘rules’ of statutory interpretation. This new concept can be traced back to Willis’s 1938 article ‘Statutory interpretation in a nutshell’. Willis phrased the process of interpretation in terms of the literal, golden and mischief rules. The judicial practice of statutory interpretation incorporates the constitutional position with an understanding of how certain ‘rules of interpretation’ can be rationally connected.
Sample multiple-choice questions for the English Legal System module for LLB open learning 1. Which of the statements below most accurately reflects the constitutional position between the legislature and the judiciary: a) Parliament encourages the judiciary to make law through the process of statutory interpretation because it does not have enough parliamentary time to enact laws itself. b) Parliament is the supreme lawmaking body and the role of the judiciary is to interpret and apply law made by Parliament. c) The judiciary considers itself a primary lawmaking body equal to Parliament. d) It is the role of the judiciary, when interpreting statutes, to fill in the gaps in the statutes.
In our government, a system of separation of powers and checks and balances are used to maintain order among the three different branches of government. The purposes and responsibilities of the legislative and executive branches are laid out in Article I and II of the United States Constitution, respectively. To balance state's rights and the rights of all of the nation's citizens, the framers of the Constitution came up with the concept of an executive branch that represents the interests of the nation and a legislative branch that represents the interests of the states. The third branch of government, the judicial branch, is responsible for balancing these conflicting interests. The Judicial Branch, has power that is, arguably, unregulated; power to overturn decisions by both the Executive and Legislative Branches.
Consider what is meant by justice. Discuss whether English Law achieves or fails to achieve justice Justice is an entirely subjective concept, largely depending on political affiliation, and previous experience of the legal system. Similarly to law, there is a vast amount of documentation providing different definitions and different theories of justice but is best described as what one believes to be the fairest course of action for both parties. In order to achieve justice, countries institute a legal system of some sort. Sir John Salmond defined law as “a body of principles recognized and applied by the state in the administration of justice”.
The Golden Rule is a modification of the literal rule and states that the literal rule is the 1st rule that judges should apply but if the outcome will result in an absurd result, then the golden rule should be used. Because of this many advantages and disadvantages take place: The first advantage is that it respects the exact words of Parliament except in limited situations, where there is a problem using the literal rule, and therefore the golden rule provides an 'escape route' for many judges, such as in the case of Re Sigworth. Next, the literal rule is dependent on words that are clearly clarified and have one meaning. The golden rule allows judges to accept that words have different meanings and choose an appropriate outcome, such of which the Parliament intended to write. This is clearly portrayed in the case of Adler V George where Adler gained access to a RAF station (a prohibited place within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act 1920) and was actually within its boundaries.
Secondly there is Common Law, Common law includes legal principles that have been developed and applied by UK courts. The courts interpret and clarify the law where there is no clear statute law. Common law takes legal precedent made by judges, for example, the right of homeowners to tackle intruders who enter their property. Government ministers may clarify or amend common law trough Acts of Parliament. The common law also includes customs and precedents that have become accepted practice.
Many critics have discussed whether or not a Bill of Rights has a place within the UK and its constitution. I will analyse the advantages and disadvantages of introducing a Bill of Rights in order to conclude on whether or not the current system should remain in place or a new system would prevail. As the Human Rights Act has played a vital part in the UK taking a step towards having a written constitution similar to that of other Western societies, it would be useful to consider whether this acts as a sufficient alternative to a Bill of Rights and whether or not there are any other alternatives that could serve the same purpose. Finally, I will analyse whether or not the Human Rights Act1 to make a decision on whether it should remain in place or adds unnecessary restrictions on protecting the UK and its citizens. English law has often been criticised for not being codified unlike other countries.
The lasting effects of the British rule over India can still be seen today making this issue significant. This issue is complex due to the fact that there are two sides or viewpoints to this issue. There is the viewpoint that the British had an overly positive impact on the Indian people, and there is viewpoint that the British had an overly negative impact on the Indian people. It is hard to form an opinion on this issue due to the fact that each side has strong support to its view. For this same reason the public opinion is divided with some people recognizing more negatives outweighing the positives while some suggest the opposite.
We will then, with specific reference to three key cases, look at the compensatory approach of damages and look at the key principles brought about by these cases and the current standing of the law, with the aid of cases and academic writing. In order to tackle this question, we must first define what a contract is. The term contract does not have a solid and/or rigid definition in English law; however, the English legal system, like many other legal systems, is reliant on the Latin “Pacta sunt servanda” – promises are made to be kept; contracts are made to be performed, when looking at the law of contract and contractual obligations. Hence, contract law is a branch of private law based on promises which are made by one party to another and the enforceability of these promises and it is by this assertion that the separation of contract law from that of the law of tort and the law of restitution rests to a large extent. In keeping a contract, it is said that the parties are executing a contract.
ALL’S FAIR IN LOVE AND LAW: AN ANALYSIS OF THE COMMON INTENTION CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST ANDREW DYSON * The article analyses the application of the common intention constructive trust to disputes involving the family home, as the law stands after Stack v. Dowden and the numerous recent cases interpreting that decision. It is suggested that instances of actual unfairness are rarer than often thought, because of the judiciary’s willingness to manipulate the formal rules of the trust in order to avoid injustice. Criticism should instead be focused on the hidden costs of allowing fairness to trump formality: a hole in the integrity of the law, and the spiralling costs of litigation which flow from the complexity of the doctrine. It is concluded that a statutory scheme is the only way forward for the law of cohabitation. I.