Quiz Content

not completed
Assume it is March 2020. Is Parliament sovereign? If so, why?

not completed
Look at the following descriptions of legislation (I to IV). Which of the options below (a to d) correctly characterises them?
I passed under the authority and with the scrutiny of Parliament
II passed by Parliament
III created under the authority of Parliament but without its scrutiny
IV takes old law and turns it into legislation

not completed
The case of R v. Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367 required an interpretation of s. 57 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. This section provided that:
"Whosoever being married, shall marry any other person during the lifetime of his spouse . . . shall commit the offence of bigamy."
The court concluded that the word 'marry' can mean:
• to become legally married to a person; or
• to go through a marriage ceremony.
If the word 'marry' had been given the first interpretation, it would be impossible for anyone ever to commit this offence as one cannot legally marry if one is already married! The court therefore interpreted the word as meaning 'going through the ceremony' of marriage. Which rule of Construction was the court using?

not completed
In the case of Whiteley v. Chappell (1868) LR 4 QB 147 the defendant pretended to be someone who was on the voters' list, but who had died. He was charged with impersonating 'a person entitled to vote', but was found not guilty.
The reluctant conclusion drawn by the court was that Whiteley could not be convicted of the statutory offence because the person he impersonated was dead, and the deceased (being dead) was not 'a person entitled to vote'.
Which rule of interpretation did the court use?

not completed
The case of Smith v. Hughes [1960] 2 All ER 859, considered the meaning of s. 1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959. It is an offence under that Act for a prostitute to solicit in a 'street or public place'. The women were not actually in the street, but were inside their homes, tapping on their windows and calling to attract the attention of men.
The women were found guilty.
Which rule of interpretation did the court use?

not completed
If we were using a speech by an MP to help resolve a statutory ambiguity, which rule of interpretation would we most likely be applying?

not completed
Consider the following characteristics (I to IV). Which of the options that follow correctly applies these characteristics?
I The Interpretation Acts.
II Uses materials from outside the statute.
III Interpretation Sections within the statute.
IV Uses the statute itself, for instance by use of noscitur a sociis.

not completed
A clause in a lease agreement states:
'The following animals must not be brought into this block of flats: dogs, cats, hamsters and gerbils'.
Using the noscitur a sociis rule, would the list include a leopard?

not completed
The case of Wood v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1986] 1 WLR 796 highlighted the difficulty in interpreting exactly what is meant by an offensive weapon.
This was defined by s. 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as being 'any gun, pistol, hanger, cutlass, bludgeon or other offensive weapon'.
Mr Wood was charged under this Act after using a piece of broken glass, which had fallen out of his front door, as a weapon.
Which of the following is correct?

not completed
This scenario is based on the Litster v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1988] UKHL 10 case.
One of the objects of the Business Transfer Directive (77/187/E.E.C.), was "to provide for the protection of employees in the event of a change of employer, in particular, to ensure that their rights are safeguarded."
Under Article 3 of the Business Transfer Directive (77/187/E.E.C.), upon the transfer of a business from one employer to another, the benefit and burden of a contract of employment between the transferor ("the old owner") and a worker in the business should devolve on the transferee ("the new owner").
This part of the Directive was implemented by Reg 8 if The Transfer of Undertakings, (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (S.I. 1981 No. 1794), "(1) Where either before or after the relevant transfer, any employee of the transferor or transferee is dismissed, that employee shall be treated ... as unfairly dismissed if the transfer or a reason connected with it is the reason or principal reason for his dismissal."
In the UK Regulations, Reg 5 clarified the word 'before': "Any reference to a person employed in an undertaking or part of one transferred by a relevant transfer is a reference to a person so employed immediately before the transfer…"
In February 1984, the dockworkers at the insolvent Forth Dry Dock were sacked, and an hour later their ex-employers were taken over, free of the employees. Until the case reached House of Lords, the new owner had successfully argued that because the ex-employees were just that, the new owner did not inherit the employment obligations owed by the old owner to the ex-employees, because they were not employed 'immediately before the transfer'.
At the House of Lords the dockworkers successfully appealed. Which rule was used?

Back to top