Haidar Mohd Noor CJ (Malaya)

I have had the opportunity of considering in draft the judgments of Steve L.K. Shim, CJ (Sabah & Sarawak) and Gopal Sri Ram, JCA in respect of the two appeals viz, 03-02-04-2002 (W) and 02-05-2002 (W) before us. I agree that the two appeals be dismissed with costs. I order the deposits to go towards the taxed costs.

I would, in addition, like to expressly state that I agree with the reasons advanced by my learned brother, Chief Judge (Sabah & Sarawak) in answering the questions posed for our consideration. It is clear beyond doubt that in view of s. 17A of the Interpretation Acts 1948 and 1967 there is now a statutory recognition for the courts to take purposive approach in the interpretation of statutes including taxing statutes.

In England, though there is no equivalent provision of our s. 17A there, the House of Lords in dealing with a taxing statute in Pepper v. Hart[1993] AC 593 (by majority) took a purposive approach. This is what Lord Griffiths said at p. 617:

The ever increasing volume of legislation must inevitably result in ambiguities of statutory language which are not perceived at the time the legislation is enacted. The object of