Essay

1.

The material facts in this case is that the plaintiff drifted while driving his car on a thin crust of glazed ice and got into an accident that he suffered injuries from. In addition, he pursued a cause of action alleging that Wessex County Council was in breach of section 41(1) to “maintain the highway” of its duty in the Highways Act 1980.

2.

The legal issue in this case is whether the duty in section 41(1) to “maintain the highway” is limited only in having the highway in good repair or if it is compulsory for the council to spread salt and grit on the road to keep it free of ice.

3.

Lord Hoffmann employed a few techniques of statutory interpretation. Firstly, he employed the literal rule at paragraph 46 when attempting in section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980 to interpret the definition of “maintain” to its ordinary everyday meaning. In addition, [paragraph 204] indicated that the intention of parliament intended no difference in meaning between the words “maintain and repair”; therefore, the literal meaning is given.

Secondly, in [paragraph 128] the mischief rule was applied as the 1980 act ended all liability on the inhabitants at large in section 38 of the Highways act 1959 transferring maintenance liability to the highway authority.

4.

The aids of statutory interpretation that Lord Hoffmann referred to includes both intrinsic and extrinsic. Firstly, in relation to intrinsic aid line 46 consists of Noscitur A Sociis because the definition of the word “maintain” can be gathered from its context. Moreover, he mentioned the long title of the Highways Act 1959 [in line 55] which is part of the aid. In addition, all of [lines 166, 257, 264, 320, 345 and 381] are relevant to section 56 and section 58 within the Highway Act itself of 1980. As for extrinsic aid,[lines 52, 131 and 209] all include interpretation of similar words found outside the statute in the Highway Act 1959.