Outline

1. Foreword
2. Part One: Learning Objectives
3. Part Two: Learning Directions
4. Part Three: Supporting Notes
   1. The Common Law
   2. Equity
   3. Primary Legislation
   4. Delegated Legislation
   5. Statutory Interpretation
   6. Judicial Precedent
   7. Legislation of the European Union
5. Part four: Assessment
   1. Identify and discuss legislation
   2. Practice legal interpretation
   3. Examine legal reasoning

Practice legal interpretation

A. Read the following case summary and answer the questions at the end of the passage.

Stock v Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd

[1978] 1 WLR 231; [1978] All ER 948

This concerned the dismissal of employees who were on strike. Under the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 an employee who was dismissed for striking could not claim unfair dismissal unless 'one or more of the employees, who also took part in that [strike], were not dismissed for taking part'. So all employees, taking part in the strike, had to be treated the same way. If one employee, e.g., the shop steward, was victimised by being the only person dismissed, he could claim the dismissal was unfair (which would be decided on the facts). In this case the employees were on strike and, following fairly normal industrial relations tactics, the employer threatened them with dismissal if they did not return to work. Some did return. The employer dismissed those who did not return and they claimed unfair dismissal.

1

Using the Literal rule, what do you think the words 'employees who took part in that [strike]' mean? Do they mean: All the employees who originally took part in the [strike]? Or Those employees who were still taking part in the [strike] when some of the others has returned to work following the threat? What are the consequences of choosing each option? Under the then law the House of Lords decided that 'employees who took part in the [strike]' could only refer to those employees who were participating in the strike when the strike began. Thus when some employees returned and were not dismissed they still counted in the number of those who 'took part in the [strike]'. The employees who had been dismissed had therefore been 'victimised' and could claim unfair dismissal. If the House of Lords had taken the second and less literal option then, provided all those who stayed out on strike had been dismissed (which had happened), the employer would have been protected against any claim for unfair dismissal. After this case employers argued that this made nonsense of industrial relations for if the employer threatened to dismiss anyone not returning to work and one person out of a thousand did the employer would either have to dismiss no one or dismiss everyone, including the one who returned. As a consequence the law was changed soon afterwards, but it has changed considerably on many occasions since and is still under debate.

B. Read the following case summary and answer the question at the end of the passage

Casson v Dade

(1781) 28 ER 1010

Under the Statute of Frauds 1677 it was a requirement that a will had to be signed by the testator 'in the presence' of witnesses.

Miss Honora Jenkins went to her attorney's office to execute her will. She signed the will but then felt faint and was taken outside to sit in her carriage with her maid. The witnesses to the will remained in the office and gave their signatures to the will. The maid gave evidence that at the moment the witnesses were signing the carriage horses reared up, causing the carriage to move into a line of sight with the office window. The maid stated that, had Miss Jenkins looked through the window she could have seen the witnesses sign.

2

Was the will validly witnessed? The court held that will had been properly witnessed. Miss Jenkins was 'on the presence' of the witnesses even though she was not physically present in the same room. The fact that she was in line of sight of the witnesses and could have seen them had she looked was enough. For, as was said in Shires v Glascock (1687) to demand otherwise would mean that 'if a man but should turn his back, or look off, it would vitiate the will'. In modern parlance, it would be absurd to hold otherwise!