{"id":363,"date":"2006-12-02T10:24:23","date_gmt":"2006-12-02T10:24:23","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2006-12-02T10:24:23","modified_gmt":"2006-12-02T10:24:23","slug":"literal-approach-1-purposive-approach-0","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/?p=363","title":{"rendered":"Literal Approach 1 Purposive Approach 0"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong><em>Bolton School v Evans<\/em> [2006] CA (Civil Division)<\/strong> <br \/><strong>[Statutory Interpretation \u2013 purposive approach]<\/strong> <br \/>D&nbsp;employed Mr Evans as a technology teacher. He was dismissed from his job after he hacked into the school&#8217;s computer system to demonstrate that security was inadequate. Before doing so he informed the head of the department. He was given a formal warning for hacking into the system. He resigned and claimed constructive unfair dismissal. He claimed he had made a protected disclosure under the <strong>Employment Rights Act<\/strong>. Mr Evans argued that his the course of conduct as a whole should be regarded as an act of disclosure and accordingly the hacking into the computer system had been part of the protected disclosure. <\/p>\n<p><strong>Held<\/strong>: Disclosure was a common word and Parliament did not intend to add some special meaning to the word. The tribunal&#8217;s approach was wrongly based on a purposive interpretation of the legislation and not based on the wording of the statute. <br \/><strong><br \/>D won<\/strong> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Bolton School v Evans [2006] CA (Civil Division) [Statutory Interpretation \u2013 purposive approach] D&nbsp;employed Mr Evans as a technology teacher. He was dismissed from his job after he hacked into the school&#8217;s computer system to demonstrate that security was inadequate. Before doing so he informed the head of the department. He was given a formal [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-363","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/363","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=363"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/363\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=363"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=363"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=363"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}