ABSTRACT
In Pepper v. Hart,8 Lord Browne-Wilkinson stated that ‘Parliament never intends to enact an ambiguity’. However, the instances are numerous where the courts are faced with ambiguity in a provision of an Act of Parliament. A set of words used in an Act may be capable of more than one meaning. A court has to choose, in those circumstances, the interpretation or construction which best suits the purpose of the legislation.
