# data[].attributes.body
In the case of Fairise Odyssey (M) SdnBhd v Tenaga Nasional Berhad [2019] 8 CLJ 20 (FC),the main issue of contention was whether of the State Authority for the construction of the transmission lines on the State land was obtained by TNB. The words in Section 12 of theElectricity Supply Act 1990 are unambiguous and clear. It stated that transmission lines can only be constructed by TNB on the State Land if there is an approval by the State Authority. From“Approval” here is clear in its ordinary meaning so it is assumed that the intention of theParliament is expressed effectively and the court can make a decision based on that without going to any further extent.

In the case of Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara & Ors. v A Child v Ors. (Majlis Agama IslamNegeri Johor, Intervener) [2020] 2MLJ277, Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ pointed out that the legislation must be interpreted in accordance to the words of the statues unless there is vagueness or ambiguity in the words used. In this case, the definition of the word, ‘surname’ fromThe Oxford’s Advance Learner’s Dictionary (7th Edition) was used because the word is not defined anywhere in the statute books. The word ‘surname’ is clear and it means what it says.

# data[].attributes.body
Case 1: R (Rudd) v. Inland Revenue Commissioners [2010] UKSC 27

Issues of interpretation:

Whether the phrase "a disposal of an asset" in section 23(1) of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 included a disposal of an interest in an asset, such as a shareholding in a company.

Outcome:

The Supreme Court held that the phrase "a disposal of an asset" should be interpreted in its literal sense, and therefore included a disposal of an interest in an asset. This meant that the taxpayer was liable to capital gains tax on the disposal of his shareholding in the company.

Application of the literal rule:

The Supreme Court emphasized that the literal meaning of the words in the statute should be followed unless there is a clear indication that Parliament intended a different meaning. The court found that there was no such indication in this case.

Case 2: HMRC v. Team17 Software Ltd [2021] UKUT 290 (TCC)

Issues of interpretation:

Whether the phrase "in the course of a trade" in section 19(1) of the Corporation Tax Act 1992 included activities that were carried out with the intention of making a profit, but which did not actually result in a profit.

Outcome:

The Upper Tribunal held that the phrase "in the course of a trade" should be interpreted in its literal sense, and therefore did not include activities that did not actually result in a profit. This meant that the taxpayer was not entitled to deduct expenses incurred in carrying out those activities.

Application of the literal rule:

The Upper Tribunal emphasized that the literal meaning of the words in the statute should be followed unless there is a clear indication that Parliament intended a different meaning. The court found that there was no such indication in this case.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Anne Hendricks Bass v. Director of Physical Planning (2016):The primary issue of interpretation in this case is related to the interpretation of Section 47 of the Nevis Physical Planning and Development Control Ordinance. The key question revolves around whether the public has the right to access information, including copies of documents, related to applications for permission to develop land. Outcome: The court determined that a purposive approach should be applied to interpret Section 47 of the Nevis Physical Planning and Development Control Ordinance. The interpretation allows public access to the register containing physical plans and documentation on development applications. Access is meant to be free of charge, and individuals are allowed to take copies of such information upon payment of the prescribed fee. The Director of Physical Planning's decision to restrict public access to this information was deemed unlawful and in breach of Section 47 of the Ordinance.

2. The Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG (2011)

In 2011, the Hon Michael Kirby AC CMG, a retired Judge from the High Court of Australia, prepared a paper on Statutory Interpretation: The Meaning of Meaning . The Hon M Kirby AC CMG stated that the High Court of Australia has unanimously endorsed other principles that are used for statutory interpretation including: 1. where the relevant law is stated in legislation then the starting point is the text of the legislation; 2. the overall object of statutory construction is to give effect to the purpose of Parliament as expressed in the text of the statutory provisions; 3. in deriving the meaning of the text words should not be considered in isolation but rather to examine the sentence or paragraph and identify the meaning in the context that they are used. Whilst the starting point to statutory interpretation is to use the purpose approach, the Hon M Kirby states that the modern approach requires a combination of analysing the text, context and purpose of the statute. To illustrate the modern approach used by courts the Hon Michael Kirby, referred to a Western Australian case that was heard on appeal by the High Court of Australia - Carr v The State of Western Australia [2007] HCA 47. Read the chapter entitled ‘Part IV A Bank Robbery and Carr’s Case – The Facts’. The Judges in Carr’s case reached a different outcome to the.

Thành viên:

2312459051 - Trần Thùy Hạnh Tuyết

2312459028 - Lê Quỳnh Như

2312459001 - Trần Minh Anh

2312459003 - Phạm Chung Gia Cát

2312459047 - Võ Trần Mai Thy

2312459050 - Lê Nguyễn Cát Tường

2312459055 - Dương Ngọc Thanh

# data[].attributes.headline
Hughes v Pritchard [2021] EWHC 1580 (Ch)

# data[].attributes.subject
Hughes v Pritchard [2021] EWHC 1580 (Ch)

# data[].attributes.body
Issue of Interpretation: has outlined the importance of providing complete and comprehensive instructions to a healthcare professional tasked with providing a report on testamentary capacity in order to satisfy the “Golden Rule” when making a will.

This case involved a dispute as to the final will of the late Evan Hughes.

Evan had promised to leave his farmland to his first child and had made a number of wills to that effect.

By 2014, Evan’s family started to notice a deterioration in his memory, as well as significant changes in his behavior. Elfed die in September 2015. Evan purportedly made a will in which, amongst some other changes, he left the farmland to Gareth, in breach of his promises to Elfed and in contrast with his earlier wills. This will was drafted by a solicitor, who, in light of Evan’s age and ill health, satisfied herself that Evan had capacity to make the will by arranging for Evans capacity to be assessed by a doctor (this is known as the “Golden Rule”).

Evan passed away in March 2017.

Elfed’s widow and his son argued that the 2016 will was invalid such that Evan’s estate should pass in accordance with his earlier will (and so Yr Efail would pass to them as Elfed’s beneficiaries). They claimed the 2016 will was invalid on the following grounds:

Lack of testamentary capacity,

Want of knowledge or approval, and/or

Undue influence exerted on the deceased by Gareth.

They also argued that even if the 2016 was valid, then the farmland was subject to a proprietary estoppel, so that Yr Efail would pass to Elfed’s beneficiaries in any event.

Outcome:

The judge concluded that Evan lacked testamentary capacity and thus the 2016 will was invalid. A key factor for the judge was the GP casting doubt on his own assessment at trial – as he admitted that he had not been properly informed of the significance of the changes being made in comparison to Evan’s previous wills. As a result, this also undermined the opinion of the joint expert, whose own conclusion had taken into account that of the GP’s.

The judge concluded that Evan lacked capacity to understand and appreciate the following three factors:

1) his and Elfed’s long-standing agreement upon which Elfed had heavily relied,

2) the extent of Yr Efail, and

3) the extent of the changes made by the 2016 will.

Nguyễn Ngọc Linh Chi

Nguyễn Ngọc Anh Thảo

Phạm Thu Phương

Nguyễn Ngân Hà

Lê Bảo Nguyên

Nguyễn Thị Thanh Huyền

# data[].attributes.body
In the case of Fairise Odyssey (M) SdBhd v Tenaga Nasional Berhad [2019] 8 CLJ 20 (FC), the main issue of contention was whether of the State Authority for the construction of the transmission lines on the State land was obtained by TNB. The words in Section 12 of the Electricity Supply Act 1990 are unambiguous and clear. It stated that transmission lines can only be constructed by TNB on the State Land if there is an approval by the State Authority. From

"Approval" here is clear in its ordinary meaning so it is assumed that the intention of the Parliament is expressed effectively and the court can make a decision based on that without going to any further extent.

In the case of Jabatan Pendaftaran Negara & Ors. v A Child v Ors. (Majlis Agama Islam Negeri Johor, Intervener) [2020] 2MLJ277, Nallini Pathmanathan FCJ pointed out that the legislation must be interpreted in accordance to the words of the statues unless there is vagueness or ambiguity in the words used. In this case, the definition of the word, 'surname' from The Oxford's Advance Learner's Dictionary (7th Edition) was used because the word is not defined anywhere in the statute books. The word 'surname' is clear and it means what it says.

2312459017-Trương Nguyễn Quang Khải

2312459013- Huỳnh Đức Huy

2312459006- Trương Phan Anh Dũng

2312459030- Dương Tài Phát

2312459031- Bùi Đức Phú

2312459022- Lê Hà Linh

2312459048- Nguyễn Thảo Trang
2312459035- Quách Phi Phụng

# data[].attributes.body
1. Gas Networks (NSW) Limited v Mine Subsidence Board [2011], Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Limited (“Jemena”) owned and operated a gas pipeline that traversed an area the subject of an underground coal mining lease. Jemena Gas Networks (NSW) Limited (“Jemena”) owned and operated a gas pipeline that traversed an area the subject of an underground coal mining lease. Accordingly, no compensation was payable. The issues were: (1) whether a particular “incident” of subsidence had to be linked to damage, real or anticipated, both in temporal and casual terms; (2) whether Wambo was decided wrongly and if so could it be departed from by the Court of Appeal; and (3) whether Jemena was entitled to make a claim to the Board for expenses which it had incurred in order to prevent damage to its gas pipeline, which was threatened by subsidence caused by underground longwall coal mining in its vicinity. The Court of appeal held: dismissing the appeal: (1) an appellate court may depart from its earlier authority when that authority is “plainly” or “clearly” wrong: at [46], [56], [168] and [189]; (2) Wambo was not “plainly” or “clearly” wrong. The Court was bound to follow the decision in Wambo: at [95], [172] and [189]; (3) the mining of each longwall was a separate event. The subsidence occasioned from the mining of Longwall 32 was not “further subsidence” following “initial subsidence” as a result of the mining of other longwalls: at [38] and [40]; (4) Wambo correctly held that the Act did not authorise expenditure made in anticipation of a subsidence that had not yet occurred: at [81]-[95]; (5) the phrase “a subsidence that has taken place” in s 12A(1)(b) of the Act to was to be assessed at the time the Board formed an opinion as opposed to when the owner anticipates damage: at [144] and [189]; (6) the causal link required that the subsidence not precede the commencement of the extraction: at [130]; and (7) whether or not a subsidence, which is exacerbated as mining continues, was part of a relevant subsidence for the purposes of s 12A which allows compensation for subsidence that has occurred, involved a question of fact that was not relevant to the proceedings in light of the agreed facts: at [184]-[186].

2. Fairise Odyssey (M) SdnBhd v Tenaga Nasional Berhad [2019] 8 CLJ 20 (FC), in the case of Fairise Odyssey (M) SdnBhd v Tenaga Nasional Berhad [2019] 8 CLJ 20 (FC),the main issue of contention was whether of the State Authority for the construction of thetransmission lines on the State land was obtained by TNB. The words in Section 12 of theElectricity Supply Act 1990 are unambiguous and clear. It stated that transmission lines can onlybe constructed by TNB on the State Land if there is an approval by the State Authority. From“Approval” here is clear in its ordinary meaning so it is assumed that the intention of theParliament is expressed effectively and the court can make a decision based on that withoutgoing to any further extent

Nguyen Le Khoi

Nguyen Tran Hai Linh

Nguyen Dong Minh Anh

Nguyen Khac Uyen Khanh

Nguyen Thi Hong Han

# data[].attributes.body
1. Deepwater Horizon oil spill also call as BP oil spill was an industrial disaster that began on 20 April 2010 off of the coast of the United States in the Gulf of Mexico .In this situation, the literal rule came into play as a major legal issue surrounding the incident was the interpretation( explain) of BP's drilling permit and the Clean Water Act. Lawyers and courts examined the wording of the permit and regulations to determine whether BP was liable for the damages caused by the spill.-> use literal rule to use appropriate punishment At the same time, in response to the disaster, many individuals and organizations applied the golden rule by volunteering and donating to support the cleanup and recovery efforts.Overall, while the BP oil spill may not be a perfect example of the golden rule and the literal rule coming together, it highlights how ethics and morality can play a role in interpreting and applying laws and regulations.

2. Lord Templeman’s 2008 Will

Upon Lord Templeman’s death in 2014, his son and daughter-in-law (the 'Defendants') refused to administer his estate in accordance with the terms of his 2008 Will and asserted the Will to be invalid on the basis that that Lord Templeman had lacked testamentary capacity to make it.r Justice Fancourt held in favour of the Claimants, upholding the 2008 Will and finding that Lord Templeman did have testamentary capacity when making it.

In 2011, three years after making his final Will, Lord Templeman managed to beat his otherwise 'unbeatable' sister Olive at Scrabble, a feat, Fancourt J considered to be a clear indication that his cognitive skills were not impaired to any significant degree.As this case shows, testamentary capacity, like many other legal concepts, is proved by evidence. In Lord Templeman’s case, there was evidence available to demonstrate his capacity but the outcome of this case could have been very different if that evidence had not been available. The beauty of the Golden Rule is that, absent strong evidence to the contrary, it should put testamentary capacity beyond doubt.

Thành viên:

2312459051 - Trần Thùy Hạnh Tuyết

2312459028 - Lê Quỳnh Như

2312459003 - Phạm Chung Gia Cát

2312459001 - Trần Minh Anh

2312459047 - Võ Trần Mai Thy

2312459050 - Lê Nguyễn Cát Tường

2312459055 - Dương Ngọc Thanh

# data[].attributes.body
In the case of Tebin bin Mostapa v Hulba-Danyal bin Balia & Anor [2017] MLJU 1115, two parcels of land situated in Sarawak were sold to the respondent's father for the sum of RM 10,368 by the appellant's father. This meant that they had entered into a sale and purchase agreement. The RM 10,368 was fully paid by the respondents' father. The conditional sale and purchase agreement was subjected to the consent of relevant authorities. A caveat on the lands had been lodged by the respondent's father on 31 July 1986. The consent of the relevant authorities had yet to be obtained till date although both the owner and purchaser of the lands had since died. On 27 September 2010, the administrator position of the estate of the appellant's father was given to the appellant. An application to remove the caveat lodged by the respondents' late father was filed by him to which the respondents objected and submitted that the appellant did not have the locus standi to do so according to the Sarawak Land Code (hereinafter referred to as the SLC). However, the appellant argued that under Section 218 of the SLC and Section 177 of the SLC, the definition of a proprietor should include an administrator, which in this case would mean the appellant. This also means that removal of caveat under Section 177 of the SLC could be done by the administrator as he has the locus standi to do so. The High Court however did not consider the provisions of Section 218 of the SLC which provides that any person as a proprietor shall deem to include "administrators under any form or code. On the other hand, the power of attorney pursuant to Section 188 of the SC had been recognized by the court in David Gramong as well as Kumpulan Laudiri to stand in the position of registered proprietor. The judge used the golden rule approach by applying a harmonious construction of the provision of the statute and concluded that an administrator ought to have locus standi. Absurdity in the construction of a statue would be avoided by such construction. Thus, it is consonant with the concept of golden rule.

In the recent case of Boast v Ballardi & Ors [2022] EWHC 1533 (Ch), the High Court upheld a challenge to the validity of a professionally prepared will on the grounds that the testator did not have testamentary capacity. The court strongly criticised the will drafting solicitors, who, despite having concerns regarding the testator’s capacity, failed to properly investigate the situation. The Judge noted the will drafter did not take any steps to check whether the deceased understood the extent of his property, and despite being aware of the deceased’s paranoid delusions, did not investigate whether those delusions were capable of affecting his testamentary decisions, either by asking further questions or by instructing a qualified medical practitioner to assess this. The ‘Golden Rule’ in regard to testamentary capacity is attributed to the case of Kenwood v Adams [1975].  The “rule” is that, in all cases where there is an elderly testator or one who is suffering from (or has recently suffered from) a serious illness, the making of their will should be witnessed or approved by a medical practitioner who satisfies themselves of the testator's testamentary capacity and who records their assessment and findings. Ideally, the medical expert should also be asked to witness the will.

Phạm Minh Thư

Phạm Anh Thư

Nguyễn Thanh Hoàng

Hà Đặng Anh Quân

Nguyễn Nhật Phúc

Bùi Thanh Hải

Nguyễn Hà Anh Đức

Nguyễn Ngọc Lan Nhi

Tăng Ngọc Thanh Vân

Nguyễn Phúc Gia Hy

Trần Huỳnh Thanh Châu

Nguyễn Hữu Hạnh Phúc

# data[].attributes.body
1. Case study: Airbnb's "One Less Stranger" campaign

In 2014, Airbnb launched a social experiment called "One Less Stranger" that applied the golden rule to promote kindness and connection among strangers. The campaign aimed to encourage Airbnb hosts to perform random acts of hospitality for their guests, with the hope that these gestures would create a positive ripple effect.

As part of the campaign, Airbnb sent its hosts a package containing a small gift and a note that explained the concept of "One Less Stranger." The hosts were encouraged to perform an act of kindness for their guests, who were also encouraged to pay it forward to someone else. The campaign aimed to foster a sense of community and kindness among Airbnb users.

The initiative resulted in numerous heartwarming stories of hosts going above and beyond to make their guests feel welcome. For example, one host in Australia organized a surprise birthday party for her guest, complete with cake and decorations. Another host in the United States offered to drive his guest to the airport and even let her borrow his car for a day.

The "One Less Stranger" campaign not only aligned with the golden rule of treating others as you would like to be treated, but it also showcased the positive impact that kindness and generosity can have on fostering human connections and building trust.

One newer case that involves the application of the golden rule in legal interpretation is the case of R (on the application of Maughan) v Her Majesty's Senior Coroner for Oxfordshire [2020] UKSC 46.

In this case, the court had to determine the standard of proof required for a conclusion of suicide in an inquest. The relevant legislation stated that a conclusion of suicide could only be reached if the evidence established beyond a reasonable doubt that the deceased intended to take their own life.

The court applied the golden rule of statutory interpretation, which allows for a departure from the literal meaning of words if it leads to an absurd or unjust result. The court found that the strict requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in cases of suicide was too high and could lead to unsatisfactory outcomes.

Instead, the court adopted a lower standard of proof, applying the golden rule to avoid an absurd result and promote a fair and just conclusion in line with the purpose of the legislation. They held that in cases of suicide, the standard of proof should be the civil standard of balance of probabilities, which requires that the conclusion is more likely than not.

This case illustrates how the golden rule can be used to interpret legislation in a way that upholds the spirit and intention of the law, even if it means departing from the strict literal meaning of the words used.

# data[].attributes.body
Here are two newer case studies that involve the application of the mischief rule in legal interpretation:

1. FACTS OF THE CASE On 25th July 2003, police officials were patrolling at Haroli, Una District, when theywere informed that respondent was taking part in illegal trading of ‘poppy straw’ andkept huge quantity of it in a room.A raiding party was formed to search the premises of respondent. A 20kg bag of‘poppy husk’ was found in a room during that search. Two samples of 250g each werecollected and sealed for examination.The respondent was arrested and later in police custody, disclosed that she hadconcealed more bags of poppy husk. Total 350kg of poppy husk was recovered.Samples from each bag were collected and sent to the Chemical Examiner.The respondent was charged under S. 15(c) of the NDPS Act1 for possessing poppystraw of commercial quantity. The trial court found her guilty and sentenced her to 10years of rigorous imprisonment along with fine of 1 lakh rupees. In case of default ofpayment, rigorous imprisonment to be extended by 2 years.An appeal was filed before the High Court by the respondent. The High Court opinedthat the tests conducted by the Chemical Examiner to check whether ‘meconic acid’and ‘morphine’ was present in the collected sample, was not enough to determine thatit was poppy straw.The presence of ‘meconic acid’ and ‘morphine’ itself didn’t indicate that it could bepart of any plant species related to ‘papaver somniferum L’ from which ‘opium’ canbe extracted from.Therefore, the High Court held that the two tests conducted can’t be sufficientevidence to hold the respondent guilty. The prosecution failed to prove that the samplewas poppy straw. The respondent was not liable under S. 15 of the NDPS Act.Aggrieved by the judgement, the prosecution has appealed before the Supreme Courtof India

2. R (on the application of Bell) v The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWCA Civ 473:

In this case, the Court of Appeal considered the lawfulness of prescribing puberty blockers to children with gender dysphoria. The court applied the mischief rule and examined the purpose and intention behind the relevant legislation. They concluded that it was necessary for children, with appropriate medical advice, to understand the long-term implications of such treatment and have the capacity to give informed consent. The court held that it was highly unlikely that children under the age of 16 would be able to give informed consent, and therefore, the prescription of puberty blockers to such children required court authorization.

These cases demonstrate how the mischief rule can be employed to interpret legislation by considering the underlying mischief or problem that the law seeks to address. The court's interpretation is guided by the purpose and intention behind the law, ensuring its proper application and avoiding any unjust or unintended consequences.

# data[].attributes.body
DPP v Connors (2014) UKSC 18

Issue of Interpretation: Whether the defendant could be convicted of an offense under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 for possessing a controlled drug with intent to supply, even though he was unaware that the substance he possessed was a controlled drug.

Outcome: The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom held that the defendant could not be convicted of the offense.

Application of the Mischief Rule: The court applied the mischief rule to interpret the statute. The court reasoned that the purpose of the statute was to prevent the harm caused by the supply of controlled drugs. The defendant was unaware that the substance he possessed was a controlled drug, and therefore, his actions did not create the risk of harm that the statute was intended to prevent.

# data[].attributes.headline
Examples Mischief rules - Nhóm black code

# data[].attributes.subject
Examples Mischief rules - Nhóm black code

# data[].attributes.body
1. The case of Regina v Manningtree High School (2010): In this case, a high school teacher was charged with assaulting a student after he placed his hand on the student's leg. The teacher argued that he was merely trying to calm the student down and that there was no intent to assault. The Mischief Rule was applied to the definition of assault, which allowed the judge to consider the specific mischief that the law was trying to prevent. The judge ruled in favor of the teacher, finding that there was no intention to commit assault.

2. The case of SoS for Communities and Local Government v West Berkshire District Council (2010): In this case, the question was whether certain types of development required planning permission. The Mischief Rule was applied to determine the purpose of the relevant legislation and to ascertain the meaning of the terms "building operations" and "material change of use." The court held that the purpose of the legislation was to control and manage land use planning, and certain types of development should therefore require planning permission.

Thành viên:

Trần Thùy Hạnh Tuyết - 2312459051

Lê Quỳnh Như - 2312459028

Phạm Chung Gia Cát - 2312459003

Võ Trần Mai Thy - 2312459047

Lê Nguyên Cát Tường - 2312459050

Dương Ngọc Thanh - 2312459055