Settled Practice in Statutory Interpretation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21299753 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Diggory Bailey (0000-0002-8430-0726, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 81 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 28-49 |
| Publication date | 2022-03-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The Cambridge Law Journal (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0008-1973 • E-ISSN: 1469-2139 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0008197322000034 |
| OpenAlex | W4229378635 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 5 |
What use (if any) may be made of settled practice in statutory interpretation and what are the potential justifications for its use? Debate about the use of settled practice is often framed in terms of a tension between legal certainty, on the one hand, and legal correctness in giving effect to Parliament's will, on the other. That account presents a false choice. This article explores the use of settled practice and argues that it has a legitimate role to play in statutory interpretation and one that is consistent with the prevailing approach of the courts to statutory interpretation
Certainty · Correctness · Epistemology · Interpretation (philosophy) · Law and economics · Legal practice · Parliament · Political science · Sociology · Statutory interpretation · Statutory law · Computer Science · Criminal Law and Evidence · Law · Legal Issues in South Africa · Legal principles and applications · Philosophy
| Citations per year | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2023 - 2025 (3) |
| Highly cited | No |