Absurdity and unworkability

- Statute posing a question to which the answer, in practice, is always "yes" is absurd

"Were the chicken paper bags "packaging that retains heat (whether or not the packaging was primarily designed for that purpose)"?

[241] The short and simple answer to this question is "yes". We know from Mr Whittaker's research that the chicken paper bags in which CDRCs are stored and then sold retain heat very effectively.

...

[243] The point that Ms Sloane makes, of course, is that, if it is right that all packaging retains heat at least to some extent, which no one seriously questioned, then this test has been drafted in a very strange way. In effect, any food above the ambient temperature which is provided in some form of packing will be standard rated, because ex hypothesi it is provided in packaging that retains heat (and the legislation makes it abundantly clear that it does not matter whether the packaging was primarily designed for that purpose or not). The second limb of Note (3B)(d) would also be redundant, because there is no form of "other" (i.e. non-heat retentive) packaging". If all Parliament had meant to ask is "Is the product supplied in packaging?" that would have been a much simpler way of putting the point.

[244] Just as Ms Sloane is right that it is very strange to ask a question which isn't really a question at all, because the answer is always "yes", Mr Watkinson is also correct when he says that the language of Note (3B)(d) is simple, straightforward and abundantly clear.

[245] We have discussed at some length the authorities dealing with the correct approach to statutory interpretation, which is (as the CA put it in Innovative Bites) that "absent absurdity or the like" the language of the statute will provide the answer.

[246] However, that is exactly where we find ourselves. We are confronted with what appears to be a consequence which parliament, despite the clarity of the language it has used, cannot sensibly be regarded as intending. So, we can and should consider appropriate extraneous materials to see if they can help us to interpret this legislation in a way which avoids that outcome." (WM Morrison Supermarkets Ltd v. HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1542 (TC), Judge Baldwin)

- Presumption against interpretation that would give rise to burden that was very difficult to discharge

"[74] There are compelling reasons why that principle applies in the present context. First, as was pointed out in Pwr, to require the prosecution to prove that the defendant knew that the organisation had been proscribed would render section 12(1A) virtually unworkable, since it would impose a burden of proof on the prosecution which it would generally be very difficult to discharge. Legislation is not to be interpreted in a way which would deprive it of utility, where another interpretation is reasonably available..." (R v. ABJ [2026] UKSC 8)