9.
32 SkyCity is right to say that there is no rule against construing words of a definition by reference to the term that those words define. The orthodox interpretative principle, properly understood, is more nuanced, as has been recognised in this Court[1] and in intermediate courts of appeal.[2] A definition "shortens, but is part of, the text of the substantive [provision] to which it applies".[3] The defined term itself forms part of the context within which the definition so applying must be construed. The point of the orthodox interpretative principle is not to deny that the defined term itself forms part of the context but to emphasise that the purpose of a definition is to fix or to clarify the meaning of the defined term. Fidelity to that purpose makes it of "fundamental importance" that a definition is construed in the context of the substantive provision to which it applies according to its "natural and ordinary meaning unless some other course is clearly required" and that "limitations and qualifications are not read into a statutory definition unless clearly required by its terms or its context".[4]
33 However, SkyCity is wrong to say that the reasons for judgment of the Court of Appeal disclose its adoption of a more rigid approach. The response of the Court of Appeal to SkyCity's reliance on the ordinary meaning of "revenue" was to express well-founded scepticism as to whether the word "revenue" is of sufficiently definite import to convey the meaning for which SkyCity contended,[5]
- ↑ Independent Commission Against Corruption v Cunneen (2015) 256 CLR 1 at 10 [3], 27–28 [54], 32–33 [77]; Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd (2015) 256 CLR 104 at 135 [121].
- ↑ eg Singh v Lynch (2020) 103 NSWLR 568 at 598–599 [129]–[130]; Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Auctus Resources Pty Ltd (2021) 284 FCR 294 at 310–311 [68].
- ↑ Qantas Airways Ltd v Transport Workers' Union of Australia (2023) 97 ALJR 711 at 718 [32], 725 [80]; 412 ALR 134 at 142, 152, quoting Kelly v The Queen (2004) 218 CLR 216 at 253 [103].
- ↑ PMT Partners Pty Ltd (In liq) v Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service (1995) 184 CLR 301 at 310.
- ↑ Compare London, Midland & Scottish Railway Co v Anglo-Scottish Railways Assessment Authority (1933) 150 LT 361 at 367.
