Courts now favor purposive over literal statutory interpretation to achieve Parliament's intended legislative purpose and avoid absurd results.
The purposive approach to statutory interpretation has increasingly replaced the literal approach over the past thirty years. Courts now adopt constructions that promote the general legislative purpose underlying statutory provisions rather than strictly adhering to literal meanings. When strict interpretation leads to absurd or unjust situations, judges may read words into statutes to achieve what Parliament would have intended. This approach allows courts to remedy legislative gaps by applying good sense to fulfill the underlying purpose of the law, moving away from rigid literal interpretation that previously constrained judicial decision-making.
Full Summary is availble for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick
reference only.