- Explained — Kaitey (R on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2021-12-10
“…chief at which it is aimed. It was held that Explanatory Notes are admissible for this purpose in R (Westminster City Council) v National Asylum Support Service[2002] UKHL 38; [2002] 1 WLR 2956. However, as Bennion goes on to explain, although Explanatory Notes may therefore be useful as an aid to construction, the courts will resis…”
- Cited — Paccar Inc & Ors v Road Haulage Association Ltd & Ors 2021-03-05
“…Act”. Such notes “do not form part of the Act and have not been endorsed by Parliament”: ibid. In R (Westminster City Council) v NationalAsylum Support Service [2002] UKHL 38, [2002] 1 WLR 2956, Lord Steyn confirmed at [5] that:…”
- Cited — McConnell & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v The Registrar General for England and Wales 2020-04-29
“…ple the Explanatory Notes to an Act of Parliament are an admissible aid to its construction: see R (Westminster City Council) v National Asylum Support Service [2002] UKHL 38; [2002] 1 WLR 2956, at para. 5 (Lord Steyn). However, as Lord…”
- Explained — Fowler v HM Revenue and Customs 2018-11-15
“…re admissible aids to interpretation, although they cannot supplant the words of the Act itself: R (Westminster City Council) v National Asylum Support Service [2002] UKHL 38, [2002] 1 WLR 2956. The general note to the 2005 Act explained:…”
- Explained — GDF Suez Teesside Led v The Commissioners for HMRC 2018-10-05
“… is permissible to have regard to them in construing a statute, were considered by Lord Steyn in R (Westminster City Council) v National Asylum Support Service [2002] UKHL 38, [2002] 1 WLR 2956, at [2] to [6]. He explained that since 1999 Explanatory Notes have been published in conjunction with the majority of public Bills introduc…”
- Cited — Brown v Hyndburn Borough Council 2018-02-21
“…he Act as construed by the Court which must provide the basis for ascertaining Parliament’s intention (see R (Westminster CC) v National Asylum Support Service [2002] UKHL 38; [2002] 1 WLR 2956), and their interpretation remains of course a matter for the Court.…”