Rules of Language

Judges have developed three common sense rules when dealing with phrases in Acts:

 Ejusdem Generis – Words of the same kind

 Expressio Unius – Express wording
 Noscitur a Sociis - A word is known by the company it keeps

Ejusdem Generis
What to look for: The judge looks for a list of specific words followed by a general word. The list
must have two or more words in it.

Applying the rule: General words are limited to kind of items in the list. The judge looks for the
theme in the list and can only apply the Act to this theme.

Example: "cats, dogs and other such animals". Under this rule the other animals must be of the
same kind as "cats, dogs", arguably domestic animals / pets.

Case Example: Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse (1899) The D was charged with running an
illegal betting stall at a racecourse. The Act said "house, office, room or other place for betting"

Held: As the outdoor tent called "Tattersall's Ring" did not fall within meaning of words in the
Act as it was outdoors, and the specific words in the Act were limited to indoor places. Hence
defendant not guilty of offence.

Alan v Emerson: Concerning whether a ‘funfair’ was a place of amusement. There must be at
least two specific words in a list before the general word or phrase for this rule to operate.

Held: The phrase ‘theatre or other place of public entertainment’ in the act includes a funfair
even though it was not of the same kind as theatres.

Advantages of Ejusdem Generis:

 There is no need for draftsman to write an exhaustive list of everything that is included.
So the Act can cover circumstances not thought of by the draftsman but which they
would have included if they had thought about it, for example in the case of Alan v
Emerson.
 Allows the Act to adapt to changes in society such social or technological change.

Disadvantages of Ejusdem Generis:

  The rule is unpredictable as what judges will consider is of same category as the specific
words may differ. For example in the case ex parte Kihara four homeless asylum seekers
claimed they were in priority need for housing due to their extreme financial hardship
caused by the withdrawal of their benefits. The Housing Act 1985 gave priority to those
who were ‘vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical
disability or other special reason.’ The Court of Appeal felt the phrase included the
asylum seekers despite the words referring to mental and physical needs.
 The rule could mean judges conflict with the theory of separation of powers. For
example in the case of Powell v Kempton allowing the defendant to escape prosecution
for running an illegal betting stall simply as the act only allowed those outside to be
prosecuted may not have been parliaments true intention.

Express wording
What to look for: Where there is no general words with a list in the Act the judge must interpret
the Act to only include things in the list.

Example: If Act specifically mentioned "Persian cats and Siamese cats" (and no general words)
then under this rule the Act would not apply to other breeds of cat.

Case example: Tempest v Kilner (1846): The case was about whether "goods, wares and
Merchandise" listed in the Statute of Frauds 1677 applied to sale of stocks and shares. Held:
Stocks and shares were not in the list and there were no general words, hence the sale of stocks
and shares do not have to comply with requirements of the Act: i.e. the sale need be evidenced
in writing.

Inhabitant of Sedgley, R v (1831): A statute raised taxes on 'lands, houses and coalmines'. Held:
That taxes did not apply to limestone mines as these were not specifically mentioned nor did
the as these were not specifically mentioned nor did the statute suggest that it would apply to
other types of mines.

Advantages of express wording:

 A finite list is provided which makes outcomes of cases more predictable. So lawyers can
advise clients whether to pursue a case or not.
 The sovereignty of Parliament – judges apply the law as stated by the elected
Parliament

Disadvantages of express wording:

 Rigidity – There is no scope for development of the Act to suit a new situation, for
example in the case of Sedgley at the time of the Act perhaps limestone mines were not
 being worked but parliament may have wanted these taxed if they had known about
them.
 The Draftsman of the Act may not have foreseen the situation now being interpreted
strictly with this rule but may have intended to cover it. So in Tempest v Kilner the
trading of stocks and share was a development in managing risks to benefit the investor
but clearly when the Act was made such trading was not invented. On a strict in
interpretation of the Act society would miss out on the economic benefits that the tax
from such trading would bring but using express wording such benefits are missed out
on.

A word is known by the company it keeps

What the judge looks for: NOT USUALLY A LIST. The judge looks at words in the context of the
Act as a whole, and interpret accordingly.

The rule looks at words in same section or in other sections in the Act.

Example: If an Act states "hamster cages, straw and food", the meaning of "food" is found by
looking at the other words in the sentence — hence meaning hamster food and not dog food.

Case examples: Inland Revenue Commissioners v Frere (1965): An stated "other annual
interest" and in the same section of the Act led the court to declare that "interest" only meant
annual interest.

Bromley LBC v GLC (1982): The case concerned the operation of a cheap fare scheme which
resulted in the Greater London Council running the bus service at a loss. Held: That "economic"
in the Act meant run on business lines by looking at another section in the Act, which detailed a
duty to run at least at break even (no loss and no profit). Therefor the cheap fares policy was
illegal and had to be stopped.

Advantages of Noscitur a Sociis:

 There is no need for draftsman to write an exhaustive list of everything that is included.
So the Act can cover circumstances not thought of by the draftsman but which they
would have included if they had thought about it. So in Frere the judge could simply
look at another part of the act to make sense of the phrase that needed interpreting in
the case, "other annual interest".
 The rule treats the whole act as a tool for interpretation, rather than just the specific
phrase being considered. So the judge can use the rest of the act to help interpret the
phrase causing concern, such as definition and interpretation sections. For example in
Bromley v GLC the word “economic” in the act was used in conjunction with a another
 part of the act stating bus routes should be run on economic lines to interpret that
Bromley could not a cheap fair scheme at a loss.

Disadvantages of Noscitur a Sociis:

 Leaves room for judicial development of the law, which can be seen as judicial law
making. So in the case of Frere parliament may not have wished another part of the Ac
to be referred to in order to decide that tax was not payable on Frere’s earnings. This
interpretation meant that not only did society miss out on the benefits these payments
could bring to society in general but may not have been the approach parliament
intended.
 The rule can risk clashing with the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty. In the case of
Bromley GLV v GLC reading the word economic with the other part of the act that said
not to run at a loss was a broad interpretation of the section. This may conflict
parliamentary sovereignty as the council could have been left to continue with its cheap
bus fares and it should be for local and national voters and ultimately parliament to
decide whether this scheme was of value to society as a whole, with the legislation
amended as appropriate.