Introduction:
One of the most important rules of the construction of statutes is the ‘Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius’. This is a Latin term which etymologically means ‘Express Mention and Implied Exclusion’. The dictionary definition of this Latin term is ‘when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned, others of the same class are excluded’.[1]
Illustration
- If a statute refers to buses and trucks, it will include only buses and trucks in its scope and will exclude cars or any other means of transportation.
- Generally, Saturdays and Sundays are considered holidays. But wherein a company specifically mentions Sunday as their holiday in the week, it is implied that Saturday is their working day.
This is one of the principles of interpreting the statutes. This maxim is another way to determine the purpose and object of the legislature. This principle indicates that the items not in the list are presumed to be not covered by the statutory provisions. Mentioning of one or more specified things in the statute will be held to exclude other similar things that are not expressly mentioned in the list. This is an aid to the interpretation of statutes. The effect of this rule is that a list of words which is not followed by general words, the act will apply only to those words that have been used in the list. If the terms and phrases in the statute are plain and simple and the meaning is clear, there is not a scope for applying this principle.
Concurrent occurrence of two probabilities in a single event is not prudent and contrary to the laws of the land. When one aspect has been mentioned expressly, then in order to make that admissible, the other aspect gets totally ruled out.
Where can this Rule be Applied?
This maxim will only be applied in such cases where specific words are being mentioned in any statute. However, it will not be applied in those cases where general words are being mentioned along-with specific words, for example – etc, so on, others or any other such generalizing words.
Case Laws
- In R.V. Secretary of State for the Home Deptt., ex-parte crew[2] here, the decree excluded the father of an illegitimate child from rights under immigration law at the time, because the statute specifically mentioned the mother alone.
- In the case of Farrall v. Shea[3], it was held that when any legislature provides that actions for the recovery of personal property should survive, it would have been proper to include ‘real property’ in the provision so as to read ‘… for the recovery of personal or real property’. Applying the rule of expressio unius est exclusion alterius, it was held that the legislature must have on purpose omitted the term ‘real property’.
- This maxim was also applied by J. Henchy in the case of Kiely v. Minister of Social Welfare[4] when he said that, “The fact that Article 11(5) allows a written statement to be received in evidence in the specified limited circumstances means that it cannot be received in any other circumstances: expression unius est exclusion alterius.”
- In R (Veolia ES Nottinghamshire Ltd.) v. Nottinghamshire County Council[5], it was held that Section 15(3) of the Audit Commission Act, 1988 grants a particular exception to section 15(1) right to inspect so far as any document ‘contains personal information’. Personal Information has been defined and it cannot be extended to commercial personal information. This explicit exception that has been made completely rules out any chances of putting confidential information in the personal information.
- In Chain Belt Co. v. Milwaukee[6], the concerned court had pertained to this rule[7]. In this case, the Milwaukee Charter was involved and the city had contended for the right to license elevators and their operations, but ‘elevators’ had not been mentioned in the licensing chapter of the charter. The court applied this rule in order to understand the intent of the legislature. It was held that the “enumeration of the subjects which may be regulated by license also tends somewhat to indicate a legislative intention that the city should not exercise that powers over other subjects”. The Court thus could not grant power for the licensing of elevators in the city. As the legislature has not granted a certain power to the city, so the city cannot possess it.
Conclusion
There are two kinds of aids of construction – external and internal. This expression falls under the internal aids to construction, meaning in case of doubt or ambiguity arises as to various provisions or sections within a statute, this principle shall be applied, which will primarily help determine the intent of the legislature and also help rule out the options not mentioned in the statute.
References:
- https://www.iclr.co.uk/knowledge/glossary/expressio-unius-exclusio-alterius/
- http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4175&context=mulr
- http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4175&context=mulr
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/expressio%20unius%20est%20exclusio%20alterius
[2] [1988] AC 958
[3] 66 Wis. 561
[4] http://lawaids.blogspot.com/2010/05/maxim-expressio-unis-est-exclusio.html
[5] [2010] EWCA Civ 1214; [2012] PTSR 185
[6] 151 Wis. 188
[7] https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/148693509.pdf
0 Comments