|
|
|
Home > Law > Law glossary > Law glossary
Allen v Emmerson and others (1944)
Last modified: Thu Feb 23 16:37:37 2006
This case ([1944] KB 362) demonstrates a problem in
StatutoryInterpretation: determining whether
the EjusdemGeneris rule should be applied or not.
The passage in question is from the
Barrow-in-Furness Corporation Act (1872), and looks like this:
``No theatre or other place of public entertainment (other than...) ...
shall be opened or used unless the same shall first have been
licensed by the Corporation...''
and the issue at state was whether a fun-fair was included in the
description ``other places of public entertainment'' and therefore
subject to control by the local authority as set out in the Act.
On first hearing by magistrates it was ruled that ejusdem generis
should apply, and the passage should refer to theatres and things
in the same class as theatres (e.g., presumably, cinemas). However,
the Kings Bench subjected the passage and its context to rigourous
logical scrutiny; it held that the ``other than...'' clause
introduced items that would be logically inconsistent with the
view that ``other places of public entertainment'' was ejusdem generis
with ``theatre''. In effect such an interpretation would
be equivalent to saying ``all hats (other than gloves) and other headwear''.
Since gloves are not headwear, it makes no sense to exclude them from the
class `hats'.
This case is often cited as confirming the tendency for ejusdem generis
to apply only to clauses where there is more than one specific item listed
(e.g., X, Y, and other Zs). But in fact the decision to disapply the rule in
this instance probably owed as much to the logical analysis above than
to that principle.
CaseLaw
Law glossary index
|
|
|
|
Shameless plug
|
 By the author of this site. Buy on-line from Amazon USA | UK
|
|