ABSTRACT
In construing an Act of Parliament, the dictionary is of little assistance. To begin with, a dictionary usually gives more than one meaning to a word or an expression and divorces the word entirely from its context. A properly composed sentence is the expression of an idea. In Re Bidie,21 Lord Green said that,
The first thing one has to do … in construing words in a section of an Act of Parliament is not to take those words in vacuo, so to speak, and attribute to them what is sometimes called their natural or ordinary meaning. Few words in the English language have a natural or ordinary meaning in the sense that they must be so read that their meaning is entirely independent of their context. The method of construing statutes … is not to take particular words and attribute to them a sort of prima facie meaning which you may have to displace or modify. It is to read the statute as a whole and ask oneself the question: “In this statute, in this context, relating to the subject-matter, what is the true meaning of that word?” In the present case…the learned [Judge] attributed too much force to … the abstract or unconditioned meaning of the word “representation”. No doubt, in certain contexts, “representation” would be sufficient to cover not merely probate and not merely letters of administration with the will annexed, but administration simpliciter. The real question … is: What does the word mean in the context in which we find it here, both in the immediate context of the subsection in which the word occurs and in the general context of the Act, having regard to the declared intention of the Act and the obvious evil that it is designed to remedy? Words in the abstract do not have a meaning. They ‘cannot be read in
isolation; their colour and their content are derived from their context’.22 As Lord Wright MR23 pointed out with respect to the word free,
It is now convenient to examine the actual language of the Constitution so far as relevant, in order to ascertain its true construction. The first question is what is meant by “absolutely free” in s.92. It may be that the word “absolutely” adds nothing. The trade is either free or it is not free. “Absolutely” may perhaps be regarded as merely inserted to add emphasis. The expression “absolutely free” is generally described as popular or rhetorical. On the other hand, “absolutely” may have been added with the object of excluding the risk of partial or veiled infringements. In any case, the use of the language involves the fallacy that a word completely general and undefined is most effective. A good draftsman would realise that the mere generality of the word must compel limitation in its interpretation. “Free” in itself is vague and indeterminate. It must take its colour from the context.
