Advanced search
Publication Cover
Legisprudence Volume 3, 2009 - Issue 2
Journal homepage
87
Views
6
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Original Articles

Should Common Law Doctrines Dynamically Guide The Interpretation of Statutes?

Mark L Humphèry-Jenner Mark L Humphèry-Jenner is a PhD candidate in finance at the Australian School of Business, University of New South Wales.
Pages 171-189 | Published online: 01 May 2015

  • See for example: P Finn, “Statutes and the Common Law: The Continuing Story”, in S Corcoran and S Bottomley (eds), Interpreting Statutes (Sydney, Federation Press, 2005); P S Atiyah, “Common Law and Statute Law” (1985) 48 Modern Law Review, 1; J Beatson, “Has the Common Law a Future?” (1997) 56 Cambridge Law Journal, 291; id, “The Role of Statute in Common Law Doctrine” (2001) 117 Law Quarterly Review, 247; P Finn, “Statutes and the Common Law” (1992) 22 University of Western Australia Law Review, 7; R Pound, “Common Law and Legislation” (1908) 21 Harvard Law Review, 383.
  • O Dixon, “The Common Law as an Ultimate Constitutional Foundation“, in S Woinarski (ed), Jesting Pilate (Sydney, Law Book Co, 1965), 212–13; Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd [1994], 182 CLR 104 (High Court of Australia) (Mason J); G F K Santow, “Aspects of Judicial Restraint” (1995) 13 Australian Bar Review, 116, 141.
  • See analysis in R J Traynor, “Statutes Revolving in Common Law Orbits” (1968) 17 Catholic University of America Law Review, 401, 403.
  • X v APRA [2007] HCA 4 (High Court of Australia) (Kirby J); R v Wilson; Ex parte Kisch [1934] 52 CLR 234 (High Court of Australia), 244; Blue Metal Industries v Dilley [1969] 117 CLR 651 (High Court of Australia); Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) [1981] 147 CLR 297 (High Court of Australia), 304; K & S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon & Gotch Ltd [1985] 157 CLR 309 (High Court of Australia), 315; CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd [1997] 187 CLR 384 (High Court of Australia), 408; Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] CLR 335 (1998) 194 CLR 335 (High Court of Australia), para 69; Ferdinands v Commissioner for Public Employment (2006) 224 ALR 238 (High Court of Australia) (Kirby J); P P Frickey, “Structuring Purposive Statutory Interpretation: An American Perspective” (2006) 80 Australian Law Journal, 849; K Goodall, “Comparative Statutory Interpretation in the British Isles” (2000) 13 Ratio Juris, 364, 366–67; D N MacCormick, “Argumentation and Interpretation in Law” (1993) 6 Ratio Juris, 6; J Spigelman, “Principle of legality and the clear statement principle” (2005) 79 Australian Bar Review, 769, 722; J Steyn, “The Intractable Problem of The Interpretation of Legal Texts” (2003) 25 Sydney Law Review, 5, 6.
  • See V Rodriguez-Blanco, “A Revision of the Constitutive and Epistemic Coherence Theories in Law” (2001) 14 Ratio Juris, 212.
  • See support for a “principled taxonomy” P Birks, Unjust Enrichment (Oxford University Press, 2nd edn, 2005); A Burrows, Remedies for Torts and Breach of Contract (Oxford University Press, 2004); A Burrows, “Remedial Coherence and Punitive Damages in Equity”, in S Degeling and J Edelman (eds), Equity in Commercial Law (Sydney, LawBook Co, 2005); P Birks, “Equity in the Modern Law: An Exercise in Taxonomy” (1996) 26 University of Western Australia Law Review, 1; id, “Equity, Conscience and Unjust Enrichment” (1999) 23 Melbourne University Law Review, 1; id, “The Law of Restitution at the End of an Epoch” (1999) 28 University of Western Australia Law Review, 13; id, “Rights, Wrongs and Remedies” (2000) 20 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 1; id, “Three Kinds of Objection to Discretionary Remedialism” (2000) 29 University of Western Australia Law Review, 1; A Burrows, “We Do This at Common Law But That in Equity” (2002) 22 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 1; G Samuel, “English Private Law: Old and New Thinking in the Taxonomy Debate” (2004) 24 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 335. See also: A Duggan, “Is Equity Efficient?” (1997) 113 Law Quarterly Review, 601.
  • Felton v Mulligan [1971] 124 CLR 367 (High Court of Australia), 392 (Windeyer J); O'Rourke v Hoeven [1974] 1 NSWLR 80 (New South Wales Supreme Court), 99 (Meagher J); Pilmer v Duke Group Ltd (in liq) [2001] 207 CLR 165 (High Court of Australia), 201–02; P Cane, “Taking Disagreement Seriously: Courts, Legislatures and the Reform of Tort Law” (2005) 25 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 393, 412.
  • R v Young [1999] 46 NSWLR 681 (New South Wales Supreme Court), paras 17–22 (Spigelman CJ) citing Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth). See also: Allen v Emmerson [1944] KB 362 (King's Bench); Quazi v Quazi [1980] AC 744 (HL), 807–08 (Diplock LJ); Stewart v Lizars [1965] VR 210 (Supreme Court of Victoria); Archbishop of Canterbury's Case (1596) 2 Co Rep 46a; Anthony Horden and Sons Ltd v The Amalgamated Clothing and Allied Trades Union of Australia [1932] 47 CLR 1 (High Court of Australia), 7 (Gavan Duffy CJ and Dixon J); R v Neal, Regos & Morgan [1947] 74 CLR 613 (High Court of Australia), 624 (Latham CJ); R v Wallis; Ex parte Employers Association of Wool Selling Brokers [1949] 78 CLR 529 (High Court of Australia) (Dixon J); Plummer v Needham [1954] 56 WALR 1 (Western Australia Supreme Court); Lake Macquarie Shire Council v Ades [1977] 1 NSWLR 126 (New South Wales Supreme Court); Leon Fink Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Film Commission [1979] 141 CLR 672 (High Court of Australia), 678 (Mason J); David Grant & Co Pty Ltd v Westpac Banking Corp [1985] 184 CLR 265 (High Court of Australia), 276 (Gummow J); John v Federal Commissioner of Taxation [1988] 166 CLR 417 (High Court of Australia), 434; Tokyo Mart Pty Ltd v Campbell [1988] 15 NSWLR 275 (New South Wales Supreme Court), 283 (Mahoney JA); Downey v Trans Waste Pty Ltd [1991] 172 CLR 167 (High Court of Australia), 180–81 (Dawson J); Saraswati v R [1991] 172 CLR 1 (High Court of Australia), 23–24 (McHugh J); Field v Gent [1996] 67 SASR 122 (South Australian Supreme Court); Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission v Secretary, Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [1996] 67 FCR 83 (Federal Court of Australia), 95; Bermingham v Corrective Services Commission of New South Wales [1998] 15 NSWLR 292 (New South Wales Supreme Court), 299D, 300C; Marks v GIO Australia Holdings [1998] 196 CLR 494 (High Court of Australia); Henville v Walker [2001] 206 CLR 459 (High Court of Australia) (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh and Hayne JJ); Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Clark [2003] 57 NSWLR 113 (New South Wales Supreme Court), 143 (Spigelman CJ); HTW Valuers v Astonland [2004] 217 CLR 640 (High Court of Australia); Murphy v Overton Investments [2004] 216 CLR 388 (High Court of Australia), 407.
  • CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd 408 (McHugh J); IW v City of Perth [1997] 146 ALR 696 (High Court of Australia), 702 (Brennan CJ); Newcastle City Council v GIO General Ltd [1997] 191 CLR 85 (High Court of Australia), 642 (McHugh J); R v Young, 687–88 (Spigelman CJ); Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Chan [2001] 183 ALR 575 (High Court of Australia), 588–89; Trust Co of Australia Ltd v Commissioner of State Revenue (Q) [2003] 197 ALR 297 (High Court of Australia) 310; Network Ten Pty Ltd v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [2004] 218 CLR 271 (High Court of Australia), para 87; J Spigelman, “Statutory Interpretation: Identifying the Linguistic Register” (1994) 4 Newcastle Law Review, 1.
  • McKinnon v Secretary, Department of Treasury [2006] HCA 45 (High Court of Australia), para 52 (Hayne J, considering the definition of “reasonable grounds“); Frickey, “Structuring Purposive Statutory Interpretation: An American Perspective”, supra, n 4.
  • H Hart and A Sacks, “A Suggested Restatement on the Use of Legislative History“, in W N Eskridge and P P Frickey (eds), The Legal Process: Basic Problems in the Making and Application of Law (New York, Foundation Press, 1994), 1253–54; Inland Revenue Commissioners v Ayrshire Employers Mutual Insurance Association Ltd [1946] 1 All ER 637 (HL), 641; Blue Metal Industries v Dilley; Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (Cth); Bropho v Western Australia [1990] 171 CLR 1 (High Court of Australia), 20; Mills v Meeking [1990] 169 CLR 214 (High Court of Australia); CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd; Newcastle City Council v GIO General Ltd; Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] CLR 335, 641; Al-Kateb v Godwin [2004] 219 CLR 562 (High Court of Australia) (Kirby J, in dissent); Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations v Gribbles Radiology Pty Ltd [2005] 214 ALR 24 (High Court of Australia); Palgo Holdings v Gowans [2005] 221 CLR 249 (High Court of Australia), para 35 (Kirby J, in dissent); R v Lavender [2005] 218 ALR 521 (High Court of Australia), para 97 (Kirby J); Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment [2005] 221 ALR 448 (High Court of Australia); Frickey, “Structuring Purposive Statutory Interpretation: An American Perspective”, supra, n 4.
  • R N Graham, Statutory Interpretation: Theory and Practice (Toronto, Edmond Montgomery, 2001); R Dickerson, “The Diseases of Legislative Language” (1964) 1 Harvard Journal on Legislation, 5, 10; R N Graham, “Good Intentions” (2000) 12 Supreme Court Law Review, 147; R N Graham, “A Unified Theory of Statutory Interpretation” (2002) 23 Statute Law Review, 91, 118; R N Graham, “Right Theory, Wrong Reasons: Dynamic Interpretation, the Charter and ‘Fundamental Laws'” (2006) 34 Supreme Court Law Review, 1.
  • Applying Graham, Statutory Interpretation: Theory and Practice, supra, n 12, 116 to the terminology in: CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd 408; Newcastle City Council v GIO General Ltd (McHugh J); R v Young (Spigelman CJ).
  • P A Cote, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada (Cowansville, Les Editions Yvon Blais, 2nd edn, 1992), 4; G Williams, Learning the Law (London, Stevens, 11th edn, 1982), 99.
  • F Bennion, Statutory Interpretation (London, Butterworths, 3rd edn, 1997), 375; E Brunken, “Interpretation of the Written Law” (1915) 25 Yale Law Journal, 129; F H Easterbrook, “The Role of Original Intent in Statutory Construction” (1988) 11 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 59; K Mason, “The Intent of Legislators: How Judges Discern It and What They Do If They Find It” (2006) 27 Australian Bar Review, 253; L P Millett, “Construing Statutes” (1990) 20 Statute Law Review, 107, 108; J Spigelman, “The Poet's Rich Resource: Issues in Statutory Interpretation” (2001) 21 Australian Bar Review, 224, 225; id, “Principle of Legality and the Clear Statement Principle“, supra, n 4; Hart and Sacks, “A Suggested Restatement”, supra, n 11.
  • See eg, F Bennion, Statute Law (London, Oyez Publishing, 1980); E Driedger, The Composition of Legislation, (Ottawa, Queen's Printer and Controller of Stationery, 1957), 161; G MacCallum, “Legislative Intent” (1966) 75 Yale Law Journal, 754, 781; Graham, Statutory Interpretation: Theory and Practice, supra, n 12, 123. See also F Bennion, “Jaguars and Donkeys: Distinguishing Judgment and Discretion” (2000) 31 University of West Lost Angeles Law Review, 1 (agreeing with outcome, disagreeing that it is due to legislative intent).
  • F de Sloovere, “Preliminary Questions in Statutory Interpretation” (1932) 9 New York University Law Quarterly Review, 407, 415; Graham, Statutory Interpretation: Theory and Practice, supra, n 12, 123. See for example: R v Ireland; R v Burstow [1997] 4 All ER 225 (HL), 233 (Steyn LJ), 240 (Hope LJ); Vigolo v Bostin [2005] 221 CLR 191 (High Court of Australia); Bennion, Statute Law, supra, n 16.
  • Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association Ltd [1999] 4 All ER 705 (HL).
  • Vigolo v Bostin; Dickerson, “The Diseases of Legislative Language”, supra, n 12, 11; Graham, Statutory Interpretation: Theory and Practice, supra, n 12, 123.
  • S Bottomley, “A Framework for Understanding the Interpretation of Corporate Law in Australia“, in Corcoran and Bottomley, Interpreting Statutes, supra, n 1, 159–60; W N Eskridge and P P Frickey, “Legislation Scholarship and Pedagogy in the Post-Legal Process Era” (1987) 48 University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 691; Frickey, “Structuring Purposive Statutory Interpretation”, supra, n 4.
  • S Corcoran, “Theories of Statutory Interpretation“, in Corcoran and Bottomley, Interpreting Statutes, supra, n 1; Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations v Gribbles Radiology Pty Ltd [21] (Gleeson, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ); Spigelman, “Principle of Legality and the Clear Statement Principle”, supra, n 4; Graham, Statutory Interpretation: Theory and Practice, supra, n 12; Millett, “Construing Statues”, supra, n 15, 109; Spigelman, “The Poet's Rich Resource: Issues in Statutory Interpretation“, supra, n 15, 225.
  • Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment 476 (McHugh J); SEC v Collier 76 F 2d 939, 941 (2d Cir) (Hand J).
  • On the legislative process see Q Johnstone, “Evaluation of the Rules of Statutory Interpretation” (1955) 3 University of Kansas Law Review, 1, 15; H Evans, Odgers' Australian Senate Practice (Canberra, Department of the Senate, 11th edn, 2001), 2; I C Harris, B C Wright, and P E Fowler, House of Representatives Practice (Canberra, Department of the House of Representatives, 5th edn, 2005); Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Cabinet Handbook (Canberra, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 5th edn, 2004).
  • Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Legislation Handbook (Canberra, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, 1999); J Macey, “Public Choice: The Theory of the Firm and the Theory of Market Exchange” (1988) 74 Cornell Law Review, 43.
  • See for example the Australian Liberal Party's rejection of a luxury car tax.
  • See eg D A Farber and P P Frickey, “Jurisprudence of Public Choice” (1987) 65 Texas Law Review, 873, 878; Evans, Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, supra, n 23.
  • Reformulation of the argument in Harris, ea, House of Representatives Practice, supra, n 23, purporting to follow the argument in P Schanck, “The Only Game in Town: An Introduction to Interpretive Theory, Statutory Construction and Legislative Histories” (1990) 38 University of Kansas Law Review, 815.
  • Hart and Sacks, “A Suggested Restatement on the Use of Legislative History“, supra, n 11.
  • W D Popkin, “The Collaborative Model of Statutory Interpretation” (1988) 61 Southern California Law Review, 541, 567; M Seidenfeld, “A Civic Republican Justification for the Bureaucratic State” (1992) 105 Harvard Law Review, 1511, 1532.
  • Argument based upon: R Shiller, Irrational Exuberance (Melbourne, Scribe Publications, 2000); W N Eskridge, “Politics without Romance: Implications of Public Choice Theory for Statutory Interpretation” (1988) 74 Virginia Law Review, 275; J Macey, “Promoting Public-Regarding Legislation Through Statutory Interpretation: An Interest Group Model” (1986) 86 Columbia Law Review, 223.
  • G Staszewski, “Avoiding Absurdity” (2006) 81 Indiana Law Journal, 1001; C R Sunstein, “Beyond the Republican Revival” (1988) 97 Yale Law Journal, 1539.
  • See eg Faber and Frickey, “Jurisprudence of Public Choice“, supra, n 26, 908.
  • See support in Eskridge and Frickey, “Legislation Scholarship and Pedagogy in the Post-Legal Process Era“, supra, n 20, 694–701; M Gleeson, “Judicial Legitimacy” (2000) 20 Australian Bar Review, 4, 6; M McHugh, “The Strengths of the Weakest Arm” (2004) 25 Australian Bar Review, 181; Marbury v Madison, 5 US (1 Cranch) 137, 169.
  • As in George Hudson Ltd v Australian Timber Workers' Union [1923] 32 CLR 423 (High Court of Australia); Rola Co (Australia) Pty Ltd v Commonwealth [1944] 69 CLR 185 (High Court of Australia), 203; Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations v Gribbles Radiology Pty Ltd [21] (Gleeson, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ); Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment 476 (McHugh J).
  • Frickey, “Structuring Purposive Statutory Interpretation: An American Perspective“, supra, n 4, 857.
  • F H Easterbrook, “‘Statutes' Domain” (1983) 50 University of Chicago Law Review, 533, 544–46; id, “The Supreme Court, 1983 Term – Foreword: The Court and the Economic System” (1984) 98 Harvard Law Review, 4, 14–15; W Landes and R Posner, “The Independent Judiciary in an Interest- Group Perspective” (1975) 18 Journal of Law and Economics, 875, 879. Discussed in: Macey,“Promoting Public-Regarding Legislation Through Statutory Interpretation: An Interest Group Model”, supra, n 30.
  • Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment 476; Schanack, “The Only Game in Town: An Introduction to Interpretive Theory, Statutory Construction and Legislative Histories“, supra, n 27.
  • See eg Schanck, “The Only Game in Town: An Introduction to Interpretive Theory, Statutory Construction and Legislative Histories“, supra, n 27, 849; Easterbrook, “The Role of Original Intent in Statutory Construction” supra, n 15, 64; Easterbrook, “'Statutes' Domain”, supra, n 36; Public Service Board of NSW v Osmond [1986] 159 CLR 656 (High Court of Australia), 689; Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations v Gribbles Radiology Pty Ltd [21] (Gleeson, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ); Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment 476 (McHugh J); United States v Medico Industries Inc, 784 F 2d 840, 844 (7th Cir, 1986); Rodriguez v United States, 107 S Ct 1391, 1393 (1987).
  • Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd 196; In Re Ericson, 815 F 2d 1090, 1094 (7th Cir, 1987); Shell Oil Co v Iowa Department of Revenue, 109 S Ct 278, 281.
  • J Bell and S G Engle, Cross on Statutory Interpretation (London, Butterworths, 3rd edn, 1995), 165–66; S Fish, “Change” (1987) 86 South Atlantic Quarterly, 423; NLRB v Federbush Co, 121 F 2d 954, 957 (2nd Cir); Schanck, “The Only Game in Town: An Introduction to Interpretive Theory, Statutory Construction and Legislative Histories”, supra, n 27, 835.
  • See eg Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd 196; Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations v Gribbles Radiology Pty Ltd [21] (Gleeson, Hayne, Callinan and Heydon JJ); Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment 476 (McHugh J).
  • Follows George Hudson Ltd v Australian Timber Workers' Union.
  • S Fish, “Anti-Foundationalism, Theory Hope, and the Teaching of Composition“, in S Fish (ed), Doing What Comes Naturally: Change, Rhetoric, and the Practice of Theory in Literary and Legal Studies (Durham, Duke University Press, 1989), 344; T A Aleinikoff, “Updating Statutory Interpretation” (1988) 87 Michigan Law Review, 20; W N Eskridge, “Public Values in Statutory Interpretation” (1989) 137 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1007; L L Fuller, “The Case of the Speluncean Explorers” (1949) 62 Harvard Law Review, 616, 625–26.
  • Cote, The Interpretation of Legislation in Canada, supra, n 14, 16.
  • Graham, “Good Intentions“, supra, n 12, 100; Eskridge and Frickey, “Legislation Scholarship and Pedagogy in the Post-Legal Process Era”, supra, n 20.
  • F Bennion, Statutory Interpretation: Supplement (London, LexisNexis, 2005), S162; W Gummow, Change and Continuity: Statute, Equity, and Federalism (New York, Oxford University Press, 1999), 1; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Pierson [1998] AC 539 (HL); Finn, “Statutes and the Common Law: The Continuing Story”, in Corcoran and Bottomley (eds), Interpreting Statutes, supra, n 1, 53.
  • National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Ltd [2005] AC 680 (HL) [64] (Hope LJ); Babaniaris v Lutony Fashions Pty Ltd [1987] 163 CLR 1 (High Court of Australia), 13–14 (Mason J); Takapana Investments Pty Ltd v Teco Information Systems Co Ltd [1988] 82 FCR 25 (Federal Court of Australia), 32 (Goldberg J); Esso Australia Resources Ltd v FCT [1997] 150 ALR 117 (High Court of Australia), 121; Towney v Minister for Land and Water Conservation for New South Wales [1997] 147 ALR 402 (High Court of Australia); Nettlefold Advertising Pty Ltd v Nettlefold Signs Pty Ltd [1998] 90 FCR 453 (Federal Court of Australia), 470; Telstra Corp Ltd v Treloar [2000] 102 FCR 595 (Federal Court of Australia), 603 (Branson and Finkelstein JJ); Algama v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2001] 115 FCR 253 (Federal Court of Australia), 263–64 (Whitlam and Katz JJ); Repatriation Commission v Gorton [2001] 110 FCR 321 (Federal Court of Australia), 327–41 (Heerey J), 333 (Emmett J), 334–45 (Allsop J); Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Energy Resources of Australia Ltd [2003] 204 ALR 487 (High Court of Australia), 492–93 (Ryan and Finkelstein JJ); NATB v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] 133 FCR 506 (Federal Court of Australia), 519; Jones v Daniel [2004] 212 ALR 588 (High Court of Australia), 594 (Moore J); Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Hicks [2004] 138 FCR 475 (Federal Court of Australia), 477 (Hill J); SOK v Minister for Immigration and Indigenous Affairs [2005] 85 ALD 323 (Administrative Appeals Tribunal), 329 (Branson J), 331 (Marshall J); Vigolo v Bostin [25] (Gleeson CJ); W N Eskridge, “Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions” (1991) 101 Yale Law Journal, 331, 397; E Levi, “An Introduction to Legal Reasoning” (1948) 15 University of Chicago Law Review, 501, 540; Burnet v Coronado Oil & Gas Co 285 US 393, 405–07; Erie RR Co v Tompkins, 304 US 64, 77–78; Apex Hosiery Co v Leader, 310 US 469, 488–89; Cleveland v United States, 329 US 14, 18.
  • H Woolf, Access to Justice: Interim Report to the Lord Chancellor on the Civil Justice System in England and Wales (London, HMSO, 1995); Queensland v J L Holdings Pty Ltd [1997] 189 CLR 146 (High Court of Australia); Bright v Femcare Ltd [2002] 195 ALR 574 (High Court of Australia), 605–06 (Finkelstein J); J Spigelman, “Case Management in New South Wales” (Speech delivered at the Annual Judges Conference, Kuala Lumpur, 22 August 2006); Justice J Spigelman, “Just, Quick and Cheap: A New Standard for Civil Procedure” (2000) 38 Law Society Journal, 24; R Ackland, “Lawyers in Limbo as Bar Raised”, Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney), 10 March 2000, 17.
  • Telstra Corp Ltd v Treloar 602 (Branson and Finkelstein JJ); R A Heiner, “Imperfect Decisions and the Law: On the Evolution of Legal Precedent and Rules” (1986) 15 Journal of Legal Studies, 227; H Monaghan, “Stare Decisis and Constitutional Adjudication” (1988) 88 Columbia Law Review, 723, 744–46; R Pierce, “Reconciling Chevron and Stare Decisis” (1997) 85 Georgetown Law Journal, 2225; F Schauer, “Precedent” (1987) 39 Stanford Law Review, 571, 599; R von Moschzisker, “Stare Decisis in Courts of Last Resort” (1924) 37 Harvard Law Review, 409, 410; Morange v State Marine Lines Inc, 398 US 375, 403 (Harlan J), 405; Eskridge, “Overriding Supreme Court Statutory Interpretation Decisions”, supra, n 47, 401.
  • C Nelson, “Stare Decisis and Demonstrably Erroneous Precedents” (2001) 87 Virginia Law Review, 1, 63.
  • Follows: Lake Macquarie Shire Council v Aberdare County Council [1970] 123 CLR 327 (High Court of Australia), 331 (Barwick CJ); Street v Queensland Bar Association [1989] 168 CLR 461 (High Court of Australia), 537 (Dawson J); McGinty v Western Australia [1996] 186 CLR 140 (High Court of Australia); Singh v Commonwealth [2004] 209 ALR 355 (High Court of Australia) (McHugh J); J Goldsworthy, “Originalism in Constitutional Interpretation” (1997) 25 Federal Law Review, 1. Follows discussion on obtaining the correct interpretation in: P Margulies, “Judging Terror in the ‘Zone of Twilight’: Exigency, Institutional Equity, and Procedure After September 11” (2004) 84 Boston University Law Review, 383; L C Marshall, “'Let Congress Do It’: The Case for An Absolute Rule of Statutory Stare Decisis” (1989) 88 Michigan Law Review, 177, 199; T H Maynard, “The Uniform Limited Offering Exemption: How ‘Uniform’ is ‘Uniform’? - An Evaluation and Critique of the ULOE” (1987) 36 Emory Law Journal, 357, 400. Implicit in: M P Healy, “Communis Opinio and the Methods of Statutory Interpretation: Interpreting Law or Changing Law” (2001) 43 William and Mary Law Review, 539, 622; S F Ross and D Tranen, “The Modern Parol Evidence Rule and Its Implications for New Textualist Statutory Interpretation” (1998) 87 Georgetown Law Journal, 195.
  • See discussion of litigation and discovery costs in the context of interpretation in: Queensland v Commonwealth (Second Territory Senators Case) [1977] 139 CLR 585 (High Court of Australia) (Gibbs J); John v Federal Commissioner of Taxation, 438–39 (Mason CJ, Wilson, Dawson, Toohey and Gaudron JJ); C S Diver, “Statutory Interpretation in the Administrative State” (1985) 133 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 549, 572.
  • Ross and Tranen, “The Modern Parol Evidence Rule and Its Implications for New Textualist Statutory Interpretation“, supra, n 51; Diver, “Statutory Interpretation in the Administrative State”, supra, n 52, 572.
  • Supported in: D Bogan, “Generally Applicable Laws and the First Amendment” (1997) 26 Southwestern University Law Review, 201, 236.
  • Ross and Tranen, “The Modern Parol Evidence Rule and Its Implications for New Textualist Statutory Interpretation“, supra, n 51. Conceded in: A L Tyler, “Continuity, Coherence, and the Canons” (2005) 99 Northwestern University Law Review, 1389, 1409–10; Eskridge, “Legislation Scholarship and Pedagogy in the Post-Legal Process Era“, supra, n 20, 1525; Marshall, “'Let Congress Do It’: The Case for An Absolute Rule of Statutory Stare Decisis”, supra, n 51, 197–200.
  • E Elhauge, “Preference-Eliciting Statutory Default Rules” (2002) 102 Columbia Law Review, 2162; E Elhauge, “Preference-Estimating Statutory Default Rules” (2002) 102 Columbia Law Review, 2027, 2087.
  • W N Eskridge, “Dynamic Statutory Interpretation” (1986–7) 135 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1525.
  • Follows: Tyler, “Continuity, Coherence, and the Canons”, supra, n 55, 1408–09.
  • Following R B Stewart, “Beyond Delegation Doctrine” (1987) 36 American University Law Review, 323, 331; Tyler, “Continuity, Coherence, and the Canons”, supra, n 55, 1408–09.
  • See eg Thompson v Goold & Co [1910] AC 409 (HL), 420; Wentworth Securities Ltd v Jones [1980] AC 74 (HL), 302 (McHugh JA); Marshall v Watson [1972] 124 CLR 640 (High Court of Australia), 649 (Stephen J); Kingston v Keprose Pty Ltd [1987] 11 NSWLR 404 (New South Wales Supreme Court), 423 (McHugh JA); Bermingham v Corrective Services Commission of New South Wales; D Auchie, “The Undignified Death of the Casus Omissus Rule” (2004) 25 Statute Law Review, 40.
  • Pierce, “Reconciling Chevron and Stare Decisis“, supra, n 49, 2238; Schauer, “Precedent”, supra, n 49, 572–75.
  • Telstra Corp Ltd v Treloar 602 (Branson and Finkelstein JJ); M Gleeson, “The State of the Judicature” (2002) 76 Australian Law Journal, 24, 29–30; S Kenny, “Maintaining Public Confidence in the Judiciary: A Precarious Equilibrium” (1999) 25 Melbourne University Law Review, 209; M Kirby, “Precedent Law, Practice and Trends in Australia” (2007) 28 Australian Bar Review, 243; J Spigelman, “Negligence: The Last Outpost of the Welfare State” (2002) 76 Australian Law Journal, 432; McHugh, “The Strengths of the Weakest Arm“, supra, n 33; Pierce, “Reconciling Chevron and Stare Decisis”, supra, n 49, 2239.
  • Follows statements on following precedent in: Geelong Harbor Trust Commissioners v Gibbs Bright & Co [1974] 2 ALR 362 (High Court of Australia), 369–70 (Diplock LJ); Morange v State Marine Lines Inc, 403; Kirby, “Precedent Law, Practice and Trends in Australia”, supra, n 62, 243; Pierce, “Reconciling Chevron and Stare Decisis“, supra, n 49; Monaghan, “Stare Decisis and Constitutional Adjudication”, supra, n 49, 752–54.
  • McHugh, “The Strengths of the Weakest Arm“, supra, n 33, 192; Kenny, “Maintaining Public Confidence in the Judiciary: A Precarious Equilibrium”, supra, n 62.
  • Follows the discussions in: Monaghan, “Stare Decisis and Constitutional Adjudication”, supra, n 49, 749–50; Pierce, “Reconciling Chevron and Stare Decisis“, supra, n 49, 2241. See eg, Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd, and reaction in: M Kingston, “Government Reversal on Free Speech”, Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney), 2 October 1996, 1. See also City of Akron v Akron Centre for Reproductive Health Inc, 463 US 416, 419–20; Webster v Reprodutive Health Services, 492 US 490, 518–19; Planned Parenthood v Casey, 202 US 833, 845–69.
  • Pierce, “Reconciling Chevron and Stare Decisis“, supra, n 49, 2240–42.
  • Thompson v Byrne [1999] 161 ALR 632 (High Court of Australia), 646 (McHugh J); L Alexander, “Constrained by Precedent” (1989) 63 Southern California Law Review, 1, 9–13; M Dan-Cohen, “Bureaucratic Organizations and the Theory of Adjudication” (1985) 85 Columbia Law Review, 1, 31; J McGruther, “Chevron vs. Stare Decisis” (2003) 81 Washington University Law Quarterly, 6, 612; A Miguel, “Equality before the Law and Precedent” (1997) 10 Ratio Juris, 372; A Scalia, “The Rule of Law as a Law of Rules” (1989) 56 University of Chicago Law Review, 1175, 1178; P Stephens, “The New Retroactivity Doctrine: Equality, Reliance and Stare Decisis” (1998) 48 Syracuse Law Review, 1515; Graham, Statutory Interpretation: Theory and Practice, supra, n 12; Pierce, “Reconciling Chevron and Stare Decisis”, supra, n 49, 2243.
  • Telstra Corp Ltd v Treloar 602 (Branson and Finkelstein JJ); Morange v State Marine Lines Inc, 403 (Harlan J); Pierce, “Reconciling Chevron and Stare Decisis”, supra, n 49.
  • See eg D J Meltzer, “The Supreme Court's Judicial Passivity” (2002) Supreme Court Review, 343, 388; Tyler, “Continuity, Coherence, and the Canons”, supra, n 55, 1408.
  • P Young, “Equity, Contract and Conscience“, in Degeling and Edelman, Equity in Commercial Law, supra, n 6, 512; Aquaculture Corporation v New Zealand Green Mussel Co Ltd [1990] 3 NZLR 299 (Court of Appeal of New Zealand) (Cooke P); M Tilbury, “Fallacy or Furphy? Fusion in a Judicature World” (2003) 26 University of New South Wales Law Journal, 357, 358; Burrows, “Remedial Coherence and Punitive Damages in Equity”, in Degeling and Edelman (eds), Equity in Commercial Law, supra, n 6, 390; Burrows, “We Do This At Common Law But That in Equity“, supra, n 6.
  • National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Ltd [62]-[63] (Hope LJ); Babaniaris v Lutony Fashions Pty Ltd 13–14 (Mason J); Arthur JS Hall & Co (a firm) v Simons [2000] 3 All ER 673 (HL); Healey, “Communis Opinio and the Methods of Statutory Interpretation: Interpreting Law or Changing Law“, supra, n 51.
  • Telstra Corp Ltd v Treloar 602 (Branson and Finkelstein JJ).
  • Ngati Apa Ki Te Waipounamu Trust v The Queen [2000] 2 NZLR 659 (New Zealand Court of Appeal) [82]; R v Secretary of State for Home Department; Ex parte Simms [2002] 2 AC 115 (HL), 131; R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Pierson 587 (Steyn LJ); Simpson v Attorney-General [1994] 3 NZLR 667 (Court of Appeal Wellington), 712; Bropho v Western Australia 18 (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ); Plenty v Dillon [1991] 171 CLR 648 (High Court of Australia) (Gaudron and McHugh JJ); Coco v R [1994] 179 CLR 427 (High Court of Australia), 437–38 (Mason CJ, Brennan, Gaudron and McHugh JJ); Durham Holdings Pty Ltd v New South Wales [1999] 47 NSWLR 340 (New South Wales Supreme Court), 353 (Spigelman CJ); Daniels Corp International Pty Ltd v ACCC [2002] 213 CLR 543 (High Court of Australia); Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v VFAD of 2002 [2002] 125 FCR 429 (Federal Court of Australia), 269; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Al Masri [2003] 126 FCR 54 (Federal Court of Australia), 76–77; Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth [2003] 476 CLR (High Court of Australia) [30] (Gleeson CJ); Al-Kateb v Godwin 577; Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers ‘ Union [2004] 209 ALR 116 (High Court of Australia), 123–24; Spigelman, “Principle of Legality and the Clear Statement Principle”, supra, n 4, 774–76.
  • Bropho v Western Australia 23; Malika Holdings v Stretton [2001] 204 CLR 290 (High Court of Australia) [29]-[30]; Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd [2003] 214 CLR 269 (High Court of Australia) [36]; Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs v Al Masri [86]-[91]; Electrolux Home Products Pty Ltd v Australian Workers ‘ Union [19]; Spigelman, “Principle of Legality and the Clear Statement Principle”, supra, n 4, 779–82.
  • Bv DPP [2000] 2 AC 423 (HL), 470.
  • Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd; Fish, “Change”, supra, n 40; Bell, Cross on Statutory Interpretation, supra, n 40; Fish, “Anti-Foundationalism, Theory Hope, and the Teaching of Composition“, supra, n 43.
  • Follows: Al-Kateb v Godwin [150] (Kirby J).
  • Bropho v Western Australia; A Glass, “Reflections on Judging: Judging as Application” (2007) University of New South Wales Faculty of Law Research Series, 35 on the content of “natural justice”; M Wait, “The Slumbering Sovereign: Sir Owen Dixon's Common Law Constitution Revisited” (2001) 29 Federal Law Review, 57; M Zagor, “Uncertainty and Exclusion: Detention of Aliens and the High Court” (2006) 34 Federal Law Review, 127; Dixon, “The Common Law as an Ultimate Constitutional Foundation“, supra, n 2.
  • Fish, “Anti-Foundationalism, Theory Hope, and the Teaching of Composition“, supra, n 43, 344; Eskridge, “Public Values in Statutory Interpretation”, supra, n 43; Aleinikoff, “Updating Statutory Interpretation“, supra, n 43; Gummow, Change and Continuity: Statute, Equity, and Federalism, supra, n 46, 13–14.
  • Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd 196; NLRB v Federbush Co, 957; Shell Oil Co v Iowa Department of Revenue, 281; F H Easterbrook, “Textualism and the Dead Hand” (1998) 66 George Washington Law Review, 1119–20; K M Gebbia-Pinneti, “Statutory Interpretation, Democratic Legitimacy and Legal-System Values” (1997) 21 Seton Hall Legislation Journal, 233, 276–78; Jackson v Birmingham Board of Education, 544 US 167, 195.
  • Theophanous v Herald & Weekly Times Ltd 196; Bell, Cross on Statutory Interpretation, supra, n 40, 165–66.
  • Stradling v Morgan [1560] 75 ER 305 315; Bropho v Western Australia, 21–22 (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ); Malika Holdings v Stretton [30] (McHugh J); Spigelman, “Principle of Legality and the Clear Statement Principle”, supra, n 4, 779.
  • Bropho v Western Australia 18 (Mason CJ, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ); Malika Holdings v Stretton [29] (McHugh J); Regie National des Usines Renault SA v Zhang [2002] 210 CLR 491 (High Court of Australia); R v Janceski [2005] 223 ALR 580 (High Court of Australia) [62] (Spigelman CJ).

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.