9. 10) Mummery LJ states “The language in which the statutory provisions are expressed is reasonably capable of the purposive construction in the Brown line of cases”. Explain what is meant by purposive construction in general and then explain its application to the facts and reasoning of Mummery LJ in this case.
Purposive construction is a term, which relates to the construction of statutes. Purposive construction is the interpretation of statute with the objective of knowing the meaning of the statute. Such construction tries to understand what is statute trying to correct.
{Can you continue it?}
11. 11) The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The decision was not unanimous. Sir Paul Kennedy stated that he was at first attracted by the submissions of the appellant, although in the end he agreed with Mummery LJ. Lloyd LJ dissented and would have allowed the appeal. Explain whose reasoning you find most convincing: that of Mummery LJ or that of Lloyd LJ. Support your answer by reference to their judgments. (You can use the first person, i.e. “I”, in your answer to this question.)
Mummery LJ had more convincing reasoning because the court made the same decision as Mummery LJ did, while Lloyd LJ was saying appeal should not be dismissed.
(12 marks)
12. 12) After the decision by the Court of Appeal, there was an appeal to the Supreme Court. Explain how the Supreme Court based its decision on the intentions of Parliament and the purpose of the legislation under consideration.