Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What is the difference between ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    I know that ejusdem generis is like a list of those affected which suggest others; i.e; lions, tigers, cheetahs would also apply to leopards but not horses. I have also been told that noscitur a sociis means words in a list within a statute that have meanings that are related to each other, i.e; “case or canister” excludes cloth bag. But I don't see the difference. Please explain in layman's terms.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Edjusgem generis = of the same kind / nature.
    Same class as specifically mentioned.
    The general wording is not itself expansive.
    Allen v Emerson [1944] QBD

    Noscitur a sociis = meaning of the words can be understood from the nature around them.
    A man is known by his associates.
    Inland Revenue Commissioners v Frere [1964] HL.

    Hope this helps a little
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by laurajadexo)
    Edjusgem generis = of the same kind / nature.
    Same class as specifically mentioned.
    The general wording is not itself expansive.
    Allen v Emerson [1944] QBD

    Noscitur a sociis = meaning of the words can be understood from the nature around them.
    A man is known by his associates.
    Inland Revenue Commissioners v Frere [1964] HL.

    Hope this helps a little
    Could you possibly give me an example to show the meaning of noscitur a sociis, please.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joy19)
    Could you possibly give me an example to show the meaning of noscitur a sociis, please.
    if a statute stated it applied to cat baskets, toy mice, flea collars and food, under this rule a loaf of bread would not be within the remit of the statute
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by laurajadexo)
    if a statute stated it applied to cat baskets, toy mice, flea collars and food, under this rule a loaf of bread would not be within the remit of the statute
    Thank you! that helped a lot!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [1] ExpressioUnius Est Exclusio Alterius: Express/specificmention of one thing implies the exclusion of another person/ thing. INR v Sedgley (1837), when considering IF taxes raised on 'lands, houses and coalmines',it was held that it DID NOT apply to limestone mines as these were not specifically mentioned NOR did thestatutesuggestthat it wouldapply to other types of mines.
    Similarly, in Tempest v Kilner [1846],the Statute of Frauds 1677 requireda contract for the sale of ‘goods, wares and merchandise’ of more than £10 to be evidenced inwriting, the court held thatit DID NOTapply to stocks and shares,as these were NOT followedby any general words, 2] The ejusdem generis rule - of the samekind. For this rule to operate theremust be at least two specific words in a list. This wasillustrated
    In Allen v Emmerson [1944], when considering the phrase ‘theatres and other places of amusement’, the court held that as there was only one specific word i.e. ‘theatres’, a funfair DIDcome under the general term ‘other places of amusement’ even though it was not of the same kind astheatres. In Powell vKempton Park Racecourse[1899]. The court held THAT ‘house, office, room or other place for betting’ had to referto an indoor places. Accordingly, D was not guilty AS HE HAD BEEN operating an open air betting i.e. Tattersall's. [3] Noscitur a sociis: A wordis known by the company it keeps.
    In Muir v Keay (1975) D kept his café open to the public duringthe night without a license. Under the Refreshment Houses Act [1860] all houses, rooms,shops or buildings kept open for entertainment during certain hours of the nightmust be licensed. The court held that ‘entertainment’meant other forms of enjoyment, such as drinking coffee late atnight. Therefore, D had committed anoffence under the Act.
    Similarly, In IRC v Frere [1965] when considering a statute which referred to ‘interest, annuities or other annual interest’,the court decided that the first use of ‘interest’ must be restricted toannual interest and DID NOTapply to daily of monthly interest
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AndrewMCV1)
    [1] ExpressioUnius Est Exclusio Alterius: Express/specificmention of one thing implies the exclusion of another person/ thing. INR v Sedgley (1837), when considering IF taxes raised on 'lands, houses and coalmines',it was held that it DID NOT apply to limestone mines as these were not specifically mentioned NOR did thestatutesuggestthat it wouldapply to other types of mines.
    Similarly, in Tempest v Kilner [1846],the Statute of Frauds 1677 requireda contract for the sale of ‘goods, wares and merchandise’ of more than £10 to be evidenced inwriting, the court held thatit DID NOTapply to stocks and shares,as these were NOTfollowedby any general words, 2] The ejusdem generis rule - of the samekind. For this rule to operate theremust be at least two specific words in a list. This wasillustrated
    In Allen v Emmerson [1944], when considering the phrase ‘theatres and other places of amusement’, the court held that as there was only one specific word i.e. ‘theatres’, a funfair DIDcome under the general term ‘other places of amusement’ even though it was not of the same kind astheatres. In Powell vKempton Park Racecourse[1899]. The court held THAT ‘house, office, room or other place for betting’ had to referto an indoor places. Accordingly, D was not guilty AS HE HAD BEEN operating an open air betting i.e. Tattersall's. [3] Noscitur a sociis: A wordis known by the company it keeps.
    In Muir v Keay (1975) D kept his café open to the public duringthe night without a license. Under the Refreshment Houses Act [1860] all houses, rooms,shops or buildings kept open for entertainment during certain hours of the nightmust be licensed. The court held that ‘entertainment’meant other forms of enjoyment, such as drinking coffee late atnight. Therefore, D had committed anoffence under the Act.
    Similarly, In IRC v Frere [1965] when considering a statute which referred to ‘interest, annuities or other annual interest’,the court decided that the first use of ‘interest’ must be restricted toannual interest and DID NOTapply to daily of monthly interest
    Thank you so much, you've really helped me understand.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joy19)
    Thank you so much, you've really helped me understand.
    your welcome, glad to have helped.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Ejusdem generis is latin for 'of the same kind'. Meaning, in an Act/Statute where there is a list that has specific words followed by generic terms or words- a judge would try and interpret the generic word based on the specific words and their similarities. So say an Act stated 'Dog, cats, fishes and other animals'. The specific words are Dogs, cats, and fishes then the generic words/terms are 'other animals'. To know what the Act may mean by 'other animals' the judge would look at the similarities between 'dogs, cats and fishes' so what are the similarities? Well they are all domestic pets.
    So the judge could say, when the act stated 'other animals' it meant other animals of the same kind that are domestic pets.
    Case: Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse
    Betting Act 1853 listed in a section 'house, office, room or other places for betting'. The court decided these were all out door places and because the racecourse was outdoor, it wasn't of the same kind to apply. Therefore no offence was committed.

    Noscuitur a sociis is latin for 'it is known by the company it keeps'.
    By the way, it's important you know the meanings for the exam.
    So here, there's generic words listed after specific words however the generic words are not limited only to the specific words. So unlike Ejusdem where you'd only look at the specific words listed, here a judge would either look at other words in same section or different sections of the Act to try to really understand what Parliament intended not just the listed, specific terms. The whole point here is for judges to look at the whole context in which Parliament made the Act than just focusing on a list.
    Case: Inland Revenue Commissions v Frere
    Here a statue stated 'interests, annuities and other annual interest'. So luckily this statute stated 'annual' and therefore told the judge 'other annual interest' only meant other annual interest so weekly or monthly interest did not apply. If it said 'other interests' without the annual in it, then he would have had to look at other parks of the statute if he used Nosuitur to interpret a phrase.

    By the way, you only need to know dates for the Acts. Do not learn the dates for the cases itself, only learn the dates of Acts that may be incoperated in some cases.
    Hoped that help, feel free to ask any more questions x
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.