Business Law Seminar 2

Stare decisis is a doctrine or policy of following rules or principles laid down in

previous judicial decisions. It is the principal that maintains that previous decisions
are to be followed by the courts. This policy dictates that the court must abide or
adhere to decided cases.
- Stare decisis vs Precedent: Stare decisis is a doctrine that obligates courts to
look to precedent when making their decisions
- Principle: Guideline =/= rule that cannot be broken
- Plessy v Ferguson (1896): precedent for legal racial segregation for 60 years
before 1953, Brown v Board of Education
- Qn: Does hierarchy of courts matter under the doctrine? Assuming the
supreme court has made a decision, are state courts then expected to follow
the same decision for future cases as a binding stare decisis? If in the US
where there are many states, does one states court decision affect another
states court ruling in the future?
Ratio decidendi is the rule of law on which a judicial decision is based. (Binding)
Obiter dicta is an incidental remark uttered in court that has no relevance to the
decision of the case or is relevant but not pertaining to the facts of the case.
(Persuasive)
Interpretation Act
An Act to define certain terms and expressions used in written law and to make
provision for the construction, interpretation and publication of written law and
for matters connected therewith.
- Act 10 of 1965
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;page=0;query=DocId%3A
%22d941b6c1-05c5-44e6-bd77-dfbb48c7b95c%22%20Status%3Apublished
%20Depth%3A0;rec=0
S9A: In the interpretation of a provision of a written law, an interpretation that
would promote the purpose or object underlying the written law (whether that
purpose or object is expressly stated in the written law or not) shall be preferred to
an interpretation that would not promote that purpose or object.
- Applicable when the Literal Rule is unable to give a satisfactory remedy to the
case
- Helps to decide which interpretation of a cases fact is valid
Literal Rule
The words of the statute are given their natural or ordinary meaning and applied

without the judge seeking to put a gloss on the words or seek to make sense of the
statute.
Problems:
- Disagreement to natural and ordinary meaning: R v Maginnis (1987) where
the idea of supply of drugs was contested
- Create loopholes in the law: Fisher v Bell (1961), statute made offers of flick
knives forbidden for sale yet displaying it with a price tag are not offers in the
technical sense but an invitation to treat
- Leads to injustice: London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman, railway
worker killed oiling which literally did not fall under relaying or repairing of
track hence no compensation payable
o Golden rule not applicable because situation not absurd
o Mischief rule not applicable because theres no ambiguity
- Fails to recognize complexities and limitation of English Language
Advantages:
- Provides no space for judges own opinions and prejudices
- Upholds the separation of powers
- Recognises Parliament as supreme power
Golden Rule
The golden rule of statutory interpretation may be applied where an application of
the literal rule would lead to an absurdity. Courts then apply a secondary meaning.
Problems:
- Judges become law makers, changing the meaning of statutes and hence
infringing the separation of powers
Advantages:
- Errors in drafting can be corrected immediately: R v Allen (1872), man
convicted of bigamy as court held that word marry should be interpreted as
to go through a marriage ceremony instead of a marriage recognized by civil
law as it would be impossible
- Often gives a more just result
Mischief Rule
Where there is ambiguity in the statute, the courts role is to suppress the mischief
the Act is aimed at and advance the remedy.
- Established in Heydons Case (1584)
o What was the common law before making the Act?
o What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not
o

provide?
What was the remedy Parliament passed to cure the mischief?

o
-

What was the true reason for the remedy?

Elliot v Grey (1960), Smith v Hughes (1960), DPP v Bull (1995)

Advantage allowing law to change and adapt to the times, Royal College of
Nursing v DHSS (1981)
Purposive interpretation

A statute must be read as a whole

The words of any statutory provision must be first read in the context provided by
the statute as a whole.
- Attorney-General v. Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover (1957)
and that every clause is to be construed with reference to the other clauses of the
act and its context to the greatest extent possible.
- Based on Canadian Court decision
Contextual Interpretation
Approach involves a progressive analysis in which a judge considers general context
of statute, takes a broad view of what constitutes the context, and then considers
other possibilities where ordinary meaning leads to an absurd result.
- Qn: Like Equity?
Esjudem Generis
A word of general meaning following a list of specific examples is to be read not in
its wildest meaning but is instead to be limited to matters of the same class or
nature as the examples listed.
- Cupid Jewels Pte Ltd v Orchard Central Pte Ltd (2014)
Statute Law v Case/Common Law
- Statues are written laws prescribed by the Parliament is a binding authority
- Case law evolves with new decisions made by judges in courts (aka
precedent), and is a persuasive authority