the purposive approach essay
There are numerous advantages to the purposive strategy. Firstly, it offers effect to Parliaments motives and avoids injustice, hence the judges can easily avoid clear absurdities and injustives therefore enables them to comply with Parliamentary sovreignity by doing what Parliament would have desired; even though is actually ignoring the clear which means of the terms Parliament applied. For example , in Coltman Sixth is v Bibby Tankers when they were required to interpret the term ‘equipment’. Second, it offer flexibility and can fill in the gaps, so looks to the spirit from the law instead of to the letter, therefore hovering towards a potentially only approach.
On the other hand words can be ommitted/added in case the court had been certain of the act, whether it was draftsmen/parliaments mistake the act was written incorrect, or the judges were sure of the substance from the provision Parliament would have manufactured. For example in Inco The european countries Ltd. v First Choice Syndication 2000 L of L.
Thirdly, that allows for new technology/developments, and also allows the judges to keep the legislation in line with modern thinking and new technical developments, for example in R (Quintaville) versus Sec of State intended for Health 2002.
The purposive way also allows our all judges to comply with the Human Rights Act 1998. Under s3 of this Action, judges must try to reach an interpretation that doesn’t infringement human rights. A literal interpretation may well reach a result that breached human privileges. Instead, presented a different presentation doesn’t go against the whole purpose of the laws, the judges can interpret the Act more creativley (Ghaidan sixth is v Godin-Mendoza).
The last advantage is that the purposive procedure is like European approach. So it permits the all judges to fulfil our responsibilities under EU Law. (Bulmer v Bolinger)
There are also many disadvantages towards the purposive approach. Firstly, it involves excessive judicial law making since it allows all of them too much independence as seen in Royal University of Nursing v DHSS 1981, the judges weren’t interpreting the Act nevertheless ‘redrafting this with a vengeance’. Secondly. itcreates uncertainty since it is subjective regulation making and it is difficult to predict when all judges will chose to use the calculated approach (Bentham). It isn’t conceivable to know for sure what result using the purposive approach may cause (Yemshaw).
Finally, it is difficult to learn Parliaments motives. It depends of looking for Parliaments purpose, but this may not even exist.
1
