How do statutory interpretation and case law interpretation differ when applying a law to facts?

• A. Statutory interpretation uses rules of construction; case law interpretation relies on precedent.
• B. Case law interpretation uses rules of construction; statutory interpretation relies on precedent.
• C. Both rely only on statutes without considering case law.
• D. Statutory interpretation ignores the text.

Answer: (A)

Statutory interpretation uses rules of construction to determine what the statute means and what it intends to achieve. This involves examining the text itself through approaches like the literal rule, golden rule, mischief rule, and purposive approach to work out the meaning and purpose of the law.

Case law interpretation relies on precedent set by previous court decisions. Judges look at how earlier cases have interpreted the same or related provisions and apply those established interpretations to the current facts, guided by the doctrine of stare decisis.

When applying a law to facts, you first analyze the statute’s language and purpose. If the meaning is clear, you apply it directly. If the language is ambiguous or contested, you turn to prior decisions to see how courts have interpreted similar terms or situations, using those precedents to resolve how the law should operate on the facts.