The basic task of the court is to ascertain and give effect to the true meaning of what Parliament has said in the enactment to be construed. But that is not to say that attention should be confined and a literal interpretation ♦ given to the particular provisions which give rise to difficulty. Such an approach not only encourages immense prolixity in drafting, since the draftsman will feel obliged to provide expressly for every contingency which may possibly arise.
Source: p 95, The English Legal System 2012-2013, Gary Slapper
Is a verb omitted at ♦? Why or why not? I tried https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/10165/8712 but am dubious. What's this issue called?
No comments:
Post a Comment