Statutory interpretation

The Court recognised the applicability of the Project Blue Sky case prin” rel=”nofollow”>inciple for resolvin” rel=”nofollow”>ing apparently conflictin” rel=”nofollow”>ing provisions [note: we are not talkin” rel=”nofollow”>ing here of the Week 9 prin” rel=”nofollow”>inciple relatin” rel=”nofollow”>ing to the effect of non-compliance with a statutory provision]:
[30] Where there are apparently conflictin” rel=”nofollow”>ing statutory provisions, the Court’s task is to endeavour to resolve or alleviate the conflict, so far as possible, by givin” rel=”nofollow”>ing each provision a meanin” rel=”nofollow”>ing which best gives effect to the language and purpose of the provisions, while main” rel=”nofollow”>intain” rel=”nofollow”>inin” rel=”nofollow”>ing the unity and harmonious goals of the Act viewed as a whole: Project Blue Sky at 381-382 [69]-[70] (per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ). The court must strive to give meanin” rel=”nofollow”>ing to every word used in” rel=”nofollow”>in the provisions and ensure, so far as possible, that no clause, sentence or word is rendered superfluous, void or in” rel=”nofollow”>insignificant: Project Blue Sky at 382 [71] referrin” rel=”nofollow”>ing to Commonwealth v Baume (1905) 2 CLR 405 at 414 (per Griffith CJ).
Show how, in” rel=”nofollow”>in reasonin” rel=”nofollow”>ing to a conclusion on the issue of the legal meanin” rel=”nofollow”>ing of the unit of in” rel=”nofollow”>inquiry, the Court applied this ‘prin” rel=”nofollow”>inciple of harmonious construction’.

find the cost of your paper