ABSTRACT
The development of the statutory law of harassment is a good example of this problem in action. The best way to gain a full understanding of the rules of statutory interpretation that follow is through repeated application to scenarios. The ‘purposive rule’ is the most modern in the statutory interpretation toolkit. The art of proper construction is predicated on achieving the perfect balance between the need for statutory interpretation and the proper role of the court in the English Legal System. The case of Mandla v Lee aptly demonstrates the problems that can be caused by different approaches to statutory interpretation. The East Midlands Trains case gives a clear example of how interpretation of non-statutory agreements is undertaken. The case involved the interpretation of a collective agreement and the lessons, even from this non-statute based case, can be applied in other contexts.
