| 单词 | Implied repeal |
| 释义 | 默示廢除 The rule that where a later Ordinance is inconsistent with an earlier, the later Ordinance has repealed the earlier by implication or is taken to intend an amendment of the earlier: West Ham Churchwardens & Overseers v Fourth City Mutual Building Society [1892] 1 QB 654 (DC); Pan American World Airways Inc v R [1959] HKLR 366 . In statutory interpretation, the courts will only construe an implied repeal if there are very strong grounds to support the implication for there is a general presumption that the legislature intended respective statutory provisions to operate together: Jennings v United States Government [1982] 3 All ER 104 at 116 (HL); Pan American World Airways Inc v R, supra. One provision repeals another by implication only if it is so inconsistent with or repugnant to that other that the two are incapable of standing together: Pattinson v Finningley Internal Drainage Board [1970] 1 All ER 790, 2 QB 33. If it is reasonably possible to construe the provisions so as to give effect to both, that must be done: HKSAR v Coghlan [1999] 4 HKC 508 (CFI). See also Repeal. 此規則指凡後來的條例與較早前的條例不相符，則後來的條例會以默示的方式廢除較早前的條例，或後來的條例被視為修訂較早前的條例：West Ham Churchwardens & Overseers v Fourth City Mutual Building Society [1892] 1 QB 654（英國地方法院）; Pan-American World Airways Inc v R [1959] HKLR 366。就法例釋義而言，僅由於有立法機構擬將有關法定條文一起施行的一般推定，因而有強而有力的理由支持，法庭才會作出隱含廢除的解釋：Jennings v United States Government [1982] 3 All ER 104 at 116(高等法院)；Pan American World Airways Inc v R, supra。僅在兩條條文非常不相符或有抵觸，而無法並存的情況下，才會作出藉含意以一條文廢除另一條文的解釋：Pattinson v Finningley Internal Drainage Board [1970] 1 All ER 790, 2 QB 33。在合理可能的情況下，須作出給予兩項條文有效的解釋：HKSAR v Coghlan [1999] 4 HKC 508（高等法院原訴庭）。另見 Repeal。 |
| 随便看 |
|
法律词典收录了8080条英汉双解法律词条，基本涵盖了常用法律英语单词及短语词组的翻译及用法，是法律学习的有利工具。