- Flynote
- Statutory Interpretation
- Case summary
- The appeal is dismissed and the decision of Hylton J is affirmed. It seems clear that unless there is something in the subject or context inconsistent with such construction, or unless it is therein otherwise expressly provided’ words in the singular include the plural. In this case therefore drafters would be expected to draft in the singular and rely on the principle, set out in Section 4 of the Interpretation Ordinance, to include the plural. If it in intended otherwise, as contended by Leeward, one would expect the legislation to expressly reflect that the plural is not to be incorporated into the singular. The use of the indefinite articles “a” and “an” used in Section 22 of the Water and Sewerage Ordinance would not, without more, connote singularity but that the undertaker being appointed is one of a group or class and as such more than one undertaker can be appointed for any specific geographical area. I do not find that there is anything in Section 22 which suggests any contrary intention which would displace the general application of Section 4 of the Interpretation Ordinance. I therefore endorse the holding of the Learned Judge at paragraph 30 where he stated: Unless [Leeward] can show that there is something in the Ordinance that requires singularity, the Defendants must succeed because of the plurality required by the Interpretation Ordinance [19]. In all the circumstances therefore, the Court affirms the decision of the Learned Judge that the proper construction of section 22 of the Ordinance does not prohibit the appointment of more than one water undertaker for any specific geographical area [33].
Loading PDF...
This document is 952.9 KB. Do you want to load it?