When interpreting words or construing provisions in an Act of Parliament, the context in which the words appear and the purpose of the Act can be used to ascertain meaning.[1] The catchcry of text, context and purpose has become a repeated moniker for the High Court of Australia’s µmodern approach’ to statutory interpretation. [2] In this context, the thought of removing either text, context or purpose as a primary factor to be considered when divining meaning seems unfathomable.
Please access a pdf of the full article using the link to the left.
(2017) 40(3) UNSWLJ 952: https://doi.org/10.53637/MHZW7665
- CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd (1997) 187 CLR 384; Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355; Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (2009) 239 CLR 27; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd (2012) 250 CLR 503.
- The first Australian case to refer to the ‘modern approach’ to statutory interpretation was K & S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon & Gotch Ltd (1985) 157 CLR 309, 315