Contradictory enactments and updating construction
F. A. R. Bennion · Oxford University Press eBooks · 2009
This chapter deals with the other two reasons for a strained construction, repugnance, and updating. ‘Repugnance’ is the reason for a strained construction covered in this chapter. Conflicting texts cannot both be applied. Their combined legal meaning is to be ascertained. Alternatively the enactment nearest the end of the Act may prevail. An Act is to be read as a whole. Every word is given a meaning, the same word has the same meaning, different words have different meanings. If a general enactment covers a situation for which specific provision is made elsewhere, the latter applies. If a later enactment contradicts an earlier, the earlier is subject to implied repeal so far as needed. Similarly with amendment. The chapter goes on to consider a second reason for a strained construction ‘updating’. An ongoing Act (treated as always speaking, the usual case) is given a construction which continuously updates the language as circumstances change. A fixed-time Act has a once and for all effect, e.g., where it is like a contract (private Act).