About: DB v The Minister for Health

An Entity of Type: Thing, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

DB v The Minister for Health [2003] 3 IR 12, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court highlighted that the literal approach (wording is interpreted using the "natural" and "ordinary" meaning of language) should always be used first when it comes to interpreting statutes. The Court also highlighted in this case that the only time the purposive approach (where intention of the lawmakers takes priority) should be used is if the literal approach leads to ambiguity or lack of clarity.

Property	Value
dbo:abstract	DB v The Minister for Health [2003] 3 IR 12, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court highlighted that the literal approach (wording is interpreted using the "natural" and "ordinary" meaning of language) should always be used first when it comes to interpreting statutes. The Court also highlighted in this case that the only time the purposive approach (where intention of the lawmakers takes priority) should be used is if the literal approach leads to ambiguity or lack of clarity. (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink	https://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IESC/2003/22.html http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1997/act/34/enacted/en/html http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/lookuppagelink/Superior%20Court%20Rules%20Index
dbo:wikiPageID	62025692 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength	9090 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID	1062668969 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink	dbr:Purposive_approach dbc:2003_in_case_law dbc:2003_in_Irish_law dbr:Plain_meaning_rule dbc:2003_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland dbr:Hepatitis_C dbc:Supreme_Court_of_Ireland_cases dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Ireland dbr:Coat_of_arms_of_Ireland dbr:Oireachtas dbr:Locus_Standi
dbp:appealedFrom	High Court (en)
dbp:appealedTo	Supreme Court (en)
dbp:caption	dbr:Coat_of_arms_of_Ireland
dbp:concur/dissent	All Concurring (en)
dbp:court	dbr:Supreme_Court_of_Ireland
dbp:dateDecided	2003-03-26 (xsd:date)
dbp:decisionBy	Denham J. Murray J. McGuinness J. Hardiman J. Geoghegan J. (en)
dbp:italicTitle	yes (en)
dbp:judges	Denham J. Murray J. McGuinness J. Hardiman J. Geoghegan J. (en)
dbp:keywords	Practice – Appeal – Time limits – Statutory time limit – Differences between non-statutory and statutory schemes – Whether claimant barred from appealing awards after expiration of time limit – Hepatitis C Com-pensation Tribunal Act 1997 (en)
dbp:name	DB v Minister for Health and Children and the Hepatitis C Compensation Tribunal [2003] 3 IR 12 (en)
dbp:numberOfJudges	5 (xsd:integer)
dbp:opinions	Allowed the appeal (en)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate	dbt:Reflist dbt:Short_description dbt:Use_dmy_dates dbt:Infobox_court_case
dcterms:subject	dbc:2003_in_case_law dbc:2003_in_Irish_law dbc:2003_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland dbc:Supreme_Court_of_Ireland_cases
rdfs:comment	DB v The Minister for Health [2003] 3 IR 12, is an Irish Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court highlighted that the literal approach (wording is interpreted using the "natural" and "ordinary" meaning of language) should always be used first when it comes to interpreting statutes. The Court also highlighted in this case that the only time the purposive approach (where intention of the lawmakers takes priority) should be used is if the literal approach leads to ambiguity or lack of clarity. (en)
rdfs:label	DB v The Minister for Health (en)
owl:sameAs	wikidata:DB v The Minister for Health https://global.dbpedia.org/id/C9nkS
prov:wasDerivedFrom	wikipedia-en:DB_v_The_Minister_for_Health?oldid=1062668969&ns=0
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf	wikipedia-en:DB_v_The_Minister_for_Health
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of	dbr:List_of_Irish_Supreme_Court_cases
is foaf:primaryTopic of	wikipedia-en:DB_v_The_Minister_for_Health