King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR 531. CLR Statutory Interpretation. Important Paras. Case Information. Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 AC 548, HL. Bennion (Statute Law, 1990), has identified a number of factors that may cause doubt: 1. CITATION CODES. Mandla v Dowell-Lee Last updated December 14, 2019. Rules of dangerous dogs act did not cover private places, d not guilty . House of Lords used a dictionary (extrinsic aid) and decided ‘ethnicity’ refers to a long shared history from a particular region. Mandla v Dowell lee. Progressive analysis - there aren't separate interpretation methods. For a … Boyce v British Airways plc [2001] IRLR 157. For an example of how this operates see Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] HL. Statutory interpretation. Commission for Racial Equality v Dutton [1989] 2 WLR 17 ; Crown Suppliers (Property Services Agency) v Dawkins [1993] ICR 517 ; Gwynedd County Council v Jones [1986] ICR 833. For an example of how this operatessee Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] HL. 278–307. They use Intrinsic aids (definitions within the statute) and/or Extrinsic aids (things outside such as dictionaries).
Mandla v Dowell Lee: A case study of differing interpretations. Ambiguity- D's dog bit 3 people, drive way could be used any person visiting either building. ATTORNEY(S) ACTS. An example of a case when both intrinsic and extrinsic aids were used is Madla v Dowell-Lee (1983) 2 AC 548 The statute (intrinsic aid) defined ‘race’ as including ‘ethnicity’ – but what does that mean? Statutory interpretation: the relationship between case law and legislation 4.8.1 Introduction 4.8.2 Case study of Mandla v Dowell Lee 4.8.3 The meaning of the word 'ethnic' in s 3 of the Race Relations Act 1976 4.8.4 The meaning of the word 'can' in s l(l)(b)(i) 4.8.5 The meaning of the word 'justifiable' in s l(l)(b)(ii) Summary Further reading
Published in: Education, News & Politics. It held that Sikhs are to be considered an ethnic group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act 1976. WikiMili The Free Encyclopedia. statutory interpretation but there were numerous exceptions, some more clearly defined than others. 5) Decision The House of Lords unanimously, 5:0, held in … The draftsman may refrain from using certain words that he or she regards as necessarily implied. The crux of the case concerned whether Sikhs constituted an ethnic group and could claim the protection of the Race Relations Act 1976.
The Commission for Racial Equality argued that A. G. Dowell Lee and Park Grove Private School Ltd. had acted contrary to the Race Relations Act 1976 by unlawfully discriminating against Gurinder Singh Mandla. Courts were sharply divided on the application of statute, the Race Act. 2 Comments 9 Likes Statistics Notes ... .
Ambiguity- word 'type' dangerous dogs act 1991 could include dogs which were similar to pit pull. No Acts. Inthis case a boy was excluded fromschool for wearing a turban. R v Bogdal. Brock v DPP. In Mandla Singh and another v Dowell Lee the Court of Appeal reached its decision on a literal interpretation of the words actually used in the Race Relations Act but the House of Lords made its decision in the spirit of what it believed the Act aimed to do and construed Sikhs to be a race and thus covered by that particular statute. A Question of Law was whether a Sikh fell within the Race Relations Act 1976. The House of Lords decision in Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v. Hart9 provided a further significant shift in judicial approach by creating a general, though circumscribed, exception to the exclusionary rule. 2. Request PDF | On Aug 30, 2018, Michael Connolly and others published The English Judiciary, Discrimination Law and Statutory Interpretation: Easy Cases Making Bad Law | …
This is consistent with the statement by the rupee court that the y are "guidelines rather than railway lines" Use of dictionaries. Mandla (Sewa Singh) v Dowell Lee United Kingdom House of Lords (24 Mar, 1982) 24 Mar, 1982; Subsequent References; Similar Judgments; Mandla (Sewa Singh) v Dowell Lee [1983] 1 All ER 1062 [1983] 2 WLR 620 [1983] 2 AC 548 [1983] IRLR 209 [1982] UKHL 7 [1983] ICR 385. In this case a boy was excluded from school for wearing a turban. comparable overseas common law jurisdictions (cf King-Ansell v Police [1979] 2 NZLR per Richardson J at p.531 and Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 AC 548 (HL) per Lord Fraser at p.562). Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1982] UKHL 7 is a United Kingdom law case on racial discrimination. A Questionof Law was whether a Sikh fell withinthe Race Relations Act 1976. OB v serious fraud office. It is intended that Australian courts would follow the prevailing definition of ‘ethnic origin’ as set out in King-Ansell.
Mandla v Dowell Lee was an authority mentioned by Lord Irvine of Lairg in a debate sponsored by him in the House of Lords on 18 January 1989 on the topic of whether and when Hansard should be taken into account as an aid to construction of statutes: for the whole debate, see cols.