The Rules of Language

• In a list, general words which follow specific words are limited to the same type as the specific ones.
• If an act states the phrase "dogs, cats and other animals" the 'other animals' would include domestic animals, but not wild animals.
• Powell v KPR 1899 - the court concluded that 'house, office, room or other place for betting' could not include open-air betting as the places within the list were specific to being indoors
• Allen v Emerson - 'theatre or other place for entertainment' need a licence but as only one place was specified the rule could not be used

Advantages

• Flexibility and keeping up to date

Disadvantages

• Undermines Parliament sovereignity

• Specific words not followed by general term implies the exclusion of other words (statute only applies to words stated)
• If an Act specifically referred to Labrador dogs, it would not include other breeds of dog.
• R v Sedgeley 1831 - an Act referred to coal mines, it could not apply to other types of mines
• R v Harris - OWA "stab, cut or wound" means the statute would not apply to bites.

Advantages

• Upholds Parliament Sovereignity
• Uncontraversial

Disadvantages

• Lack of Flexibility

• "A word draws meaning from the other words around it"
• Frere 1965 - a section of the Act referred to 'interest, annuities or other annual interest' so therefore the court decided that the first use of 'interest' must be restricted to annual interest
• Bromley - the meaning of 'economic' in it context meant a transport scheme couldn't be run at a loss, it must be run at a profit.

Advantages

• Flexibility
• Judicial creativity
• Keeps law up to date

Disadvantages

• Undermines Parliament sovereignity
• Overly Complex