Duport Steels v Sirs 1980 1 WLR 142
Citation:Duport Steels v Sirs 1980 1 WLR 142
Rule of thumb:If new statutes are introduced is the common law obsolete & pointless? Yes, it can be if they are statutes designed to resolve a gap/lacuna in the law. In-point statutory provisions which are plain and unambiguous are the apex source of law.
Judgment:
New statutes introduced are generally expected to be introduced in accordance with past case-law, with both applying. Where a statute is a codifying statute, all the previous common law case-law is still an extremely relevant source of law. However, where a statute has been introduced to remedy a problem, or address a lacuna in the law, the past case-law is of very little value or indeed in no value at all. Legislation is the highest ranking source of all the laws.
Ratio-decidendi:
‘My Lords, at a time when more and more cases involve the application of legislation which gives effect to policies that are the subject of bitter public and Parliamentary controversy, it cannot be too strongly emphasised that the British constitution, though largely unwritten, is firmly based upon the separation of powers; Parliament makes the laws, the Judiciary interprets them. When Parliament legislates to remedy what the majority of its members at the time perceive to be a defect or a lacuna in the law (whether it be the written law enacted by existing statutes or the unwritten common law as it has been expounded by Judges in decided cases), the role of the Judiciary is confined to ascertaining from that Parliament has approved as expressing its intention what that intention was, and giving effect to it. Where the meaning of the words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the Judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral. In controversial matters such as are involved in industrial relations there is room for differences of opinion as to what is expedient, what is just and what is morally justifiable. Under our constitution it is Parliament’s opinion on these matters that is paramount’, Lord Diplock
Warning: This is not professional legal advice. This is not professional legal education advice. Please obtain professional guidance before embarking on any legal course of action. This is just an interpretation of a Judgment by persons of legal insight & varying levels of legal specialism, experience & expertise. Please read the Judgment yourself and form your own interpretation of it with professional assistance.