Epistemology of Legal Maxims and Hermeneutics in Common Law Jurisprudence

Paper Details 

Paper Code: RP-VBCL-04-2025

Category: Research Paper

Date of Publication: April 20, 2025

Citation: Mr. Jackson Simango Magoge & Mr. Mohammad Rasikh Wasiq, “Epistemology of Legal Maxims and Hermeneutics in Common Law Jurisprudence", 2, AIJVBCL, 39, 39-62 (2025),

Author Details: Mr. Jackson Simango Magoge, Assistant Lecturer, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, National Institute of Transport (NIT), Tanzania &

Mr. Mohammad Rasikh Wasiq, CEO, Voice of Differently Abled Persons, Afghanistan

Download PDF

ABSTRACT

The objective of this seminal inquiry is to elucidate the nuanced paradigm of legal interpretation and reasoning inherent to the common law milieu by interrogating the hermeneutics of legal maxims through an epistemological lens. This research endeavors to delineate an analogy between the theoretical constructs and practical manifestations of common law principles and legal maxims, thereby illuminating their evolving interpretive frameworks and intrinsic scientific value.The analysis encompasses several salient dimensions: the nature of interpretive mechanisms; the interplay between legal innovation and its socio-economic ramifications; and the historical evolution of legal maxims, particularly in relation to the interpretation of criminal cases across diverse jurisdictions. To yield substantial insights into the interpretive clarity of legal maxims and to navigate the dialectic between ambiguity and interpretation, this study employs a rigorously conceived analytical framework, specifically tailored to accommodate the inherent complexities and paradoxes of legal maxims. It is pertinent to note that this study is confined to the practices of common law and predominantly utilizes doctrinal research methodologies. In doing so, it establishes a robust foundation for identifying the junctures where contemporary jurisprudential challenges intersect with traditional legal maxims. By engaging with the epistemological underpinnings that shape and define legal thought within the common law framework, this investigation aspires to further enrich the discourse on legal hermeneutics, advancing our comprehension of the mechanisms through which legal meaning is constructed and contested.

Keywords: Legal Maxims, Epistemology of Law, Common law Jurisprudence, Interpretative Frameworks.

Prologue

Legal scholarship perpetually engages in a rigorous re-examination of its foundational tenets,[1] which were delineated in a bygone era to articulate the contours of individual liberties, obligations, and redress. For instance, adjudicating an individual as culpable for trespass when their incursion onto another's estate arises from exigent circumstances constitutes a transgression against the sanctity of private property, inadvertently affording protections that exceed statutory provisions. As the dynamics of social interactions and commerce metamorphose, they engender novel complexities within legal theory and its application, culminating in an escalation of litigation. Rather than diminishing the significance of these foundational principles, such transformations accentuate the necessity for their nuanced application, modification, or circumscription in particular contexts.Despite the pivotal role these doctrines play within legal praxis, insufficient inquiry into their relevance and operationalization can precipitate erroneous conclusions. Similarly, within the realm of tort law, the axiom persists that private nuisances are more readily tolerated than public inconveniences. For instance, should a thoroughfare become compromised, rendering it impassable, it is deemed permissible for a traveller to traverse adjacent land, as unfettered access to public routes is perceived as a collective interest. American jurisprudence further corroborates this notion, permitting a motorist to navigate a roadway if compelled to cross adjoining property due to unforeseen exigencies, such as sudden flooding or substantial snowdrifts,[2] thereby facilitating their journey.Broadly speaking, public legal education is characterized as a compendium of non-formal educational endeavours aimed predominantly at marginalized or disadvantaged populations, with the objective of bolstering access to justice and fostering social cohesion. The normative ideal encapsulated by the rule of law, undergirded by assumptions of security and stability, derives its legitimacy from the public’s cognizance of legal principles and the concomitant informational and educational mechanisms. However, these principles obfuscate a historical narrative steeped in political oppression and violence that continues to haunt the legal edifice; this erasure is further exacerbated when legal pedagogy neglects the political philosophy that underpins its very essence. Consequently, the indispensable role of legal information within the public sphere engenders the possibility of alternative critical engagements with legal systems, which serve to interrogate and challenge the prevailing juridico-political order.

Legal maxims, succinct summaries of legal concepts gained over centuries of judicial reasoning,[3] play a significant part in the common law system,[4] which is known for its flexible and rich past. The study of interpretation known as hermeneutics examines how legal texts, precedents, and maxims are interpreted and implemented in relation to the law.[5] Legal maxims, which are frequently borrowed from Roman law and developed over centuries, function as fundamental guidelines for judicial interpretation and decision-making. They represent the fundamental principles of the legal system and provide clear legal facts.[6]

Legal maxims serve as interpretive instruments that connect abstract legal ideas to their practical implementation from an epistemic standpoint. They give judges a framework for navigating the nuances of particular situations and give legal reasoning a feeling of continuity and coherence. Common law maxim interpretation is a dynamic process that is impacted by changing cultural norms, judicial discretion, and contextual elements.[7]Legal maxims are brought to life by case law, which also demonstrates how they have been applied and developed throughout time. Common law is flexible, and courts interpret and modify ancient adages to conform to modern social standards and ideals. Nonetheless, ambiguities in terminology, diverse judicial philosophies, and a diversity of judges' backgrounds present difficulties in applying legal maxims.

Legal Maxims

LEGAL MAXIMS are placed at the beginning of this collection due to their broad relevance and their clear connection to public policy goals and fundamental principles that shape social interactions.[8] These maxims introduce more detailed and technical regulations that form the core doctrines of English law and are commonly referenced by legal professionals in the common law courts.[9]Salus Populi Suprema Lex.[10] The highest law is the consideration for the public’s welfare. Every individual in society implicitly agrees that their property, liberty, and life may, at times, be at risk for the greater good, and that personal interests may sometimes be subordinated to the benefit of the community.Early-modern common law writers shared theoretical ideas about legal maxims, which were highly influential in practice.[11]The lexicon of maxims pervades contemporary law reports, with the case of Colthirst v. Bejushin,[12] serving as a pivotal locus for historiographical inquiry into the theoretical and practical implications of maxims within the legal canon. This case, in its intricate legal reasoning and doctrinal ramifications, provides a substantial repository for scholars engaged in the exegesis of maxims, illuminating their enduring relevance and multifaceted interpretations within the ever-evolving tapestry of jurisprudential discourse.[13]Maxims have been the focal point of extensive discourse among historians of the common law, engaging with various theoretical frameworks and scrutinizing the intricate interplay between maxims and other legal elements. This treatise endeavors to examine the nexus between early-modern common law theory and its practical application, centring on four critical dimensions: the identification of maxims; their incontrovertibility; the substantive content and scope of said maxims; and the intricate relationship between maxims and the principles of equity.

In practical terms, the use of maxims appears to align harmoniously with the theoretical construct of maxims, and, in certain instances, the impact of theoretical literature upon practical jurisprudence is manifest. Nevertheless, the pre-eminence of maxims within the realm of legal theory does not find adequate reflection in the domain of legal practice. [14]Empirical analyses of law reports indicate that, irrespective of their theoretical gravitas, maxims frequently proved insufficient for the resolution of actual litigations.The investigation of maxims as they manifest within legal practice poses a multitude of methodological quandaries. Foremost among these is the recognition that early-modern law reports were not conventionally conceived as verbatim transcriptions of judicial proceedings; rather, they were often authored by individuals other than the legal practitioners whose arguments they purportedly convey. This disjunction necessitates a critical examination of the fidelity of such reports to the original legal discourse, thereby complicating the analysis of maxims' practical utility and their theoretical implications within the broader tapestry of common law jurisprudence.[15] There isnotable diversity in the linguistic constructs pertaining to maxims, a nuance not lost on certain early-modern authors. For instance, some contemporaneous writers delineated a distinction between the terms "maxims" and "rules," positing that these designations encapsulated disparate conceptual frameworks. Conversely, others contended that these terms were effectively interchangeable, referencing a singular underlying notion. Practitioners of the law, however, appeared largely unconcerned with the precise differentiation of these terminologies.The prevailing modern assumption that legal maxims are predominantly encapsulated in succinct Latin phrases has engendered substantial difficulties for historians engaged in the analysis of this legal lexicon. This reductionist view risks oversimplifying the rich tapestry of legal thought and interpretation inherent in maxims, thereby obfuscating the complexities and variances that characterize their application and evolution throughout the historical continuum of legal discourse.[16]

The legal doctrine of maxims has been delineated through two principal intellectual traditions. The antiquarian school posited the existence of maxims as axiomatic, eschewing the necessity of specifying their origins. Conversely, Dodderidge articulated a framework whereby secondary principles emanated from prevailing customs and maxims,[17] deemed as a culminations of a rational deductive process. Within the ambit of legal discourse, maxims were seldom advanced devoid of citation to external authoritative sources, a reflection of the prevailing sentiment that such maxims were not universally apprehended among the learned, nor were judges universally erudite.

This schism between theoretical postulations and practical application precipitated a recourse to case law within the literature pertaining to maxims. Legal practitioners frequently engaged in either an exegesis of select cases to distil a singular maxim or conversely, posited a maxim as a heuristic lens through which to elucidate various case law scenarios prior to its application in disparate contexts. The corpus and parameters of these maxims were generally consonant among theoretical writers, who concurrently acknowledged that individual maxims could embody extensive ramifications. Nevertheless, in the crucible of legal practice, the 'maxims' proffered in argumentative contexts typically coalesced into circumscribed legal principles, predominantly pertaining to the domain of property law.

The early modern theoretical discourse largely neglects the pragmatic application of maxims, particularly in the context of jurisdictional frictions between common law courts and subordinate courts of equity, such as the Court of Requests.[18] Common law tribunals categorically prohibited equity courts from adjudicating matters wherein equitable relief would contravene a "maxim" of common law, which were rigorously defined legal precepts. This methodological application of common law raises significant concerns, particularly in light of contemporary equity theory, which, informed by Aristotelian thought, recognizes the potential for undue hardship arising from the application of broad normative principles to particularized circumstances. John Dodderidge, in his sagacity, acknowledged this conundrum, thus permitting equity to function as an exception to established legal doctrines.

Gray hypothesizes that they may have justified barring equitable action, as equitable intervention was predicated on unconscionability.[19] However, one of the "maxims" cited to support the ban on equity intervention was that "a man would not be permitted to stultify himself," meaning that he could not utilize equitable intervention to avoid paying back a bond made when he was not competent.[20]

The standards of reason must naturally guide and moderate one's desires, whether they are emotional or intelligent.[21]These principles involve creating and upholding good order with and among one's colleagues and organizing one's mind. Justice in society reflects and mirror of justice in the soul, and a human being's nature "writ large" is the character of the political society.[22]Plato's works, including the Gorgias, Republic, and Laws, emphasize the central idea of natural right and natural law, which are irrational and unnatural.[23]Contemporary jurisprudence manifests a certain obfuscation concerning its fundamental subject matter, oscillating between the conceptualization of law as an abstract ideal and its embodiment as a social reality, or alternatively, as a mechanism for the legitimization of action.[24] This nebulous terrain invites a plethora of interpretations, whereby individualsincluding esteemed thinkers exhibit disparate degrees of cogency in their respective understandings of these multifaceted dimensions. Such variability engenders a rich tapestry of discourse, yet simultaneously precipitates a degree of conceptual dissonance within the field.[25]

In legal practice, maxims are necessary instruments, yet they can be misused and misunderstood. For a suggestion to become a maxim, it must be succinctly stated; nonetheless, this brevity may cause misunderstandings regarding the proposal's significance and relevance. It's possible for a sentence meant to highlight an exception to be misunderstood for the formulation of a general rule or for an expression meant to communicate one particular truth to be misunderstood for the proclamation of all truths.Certain maxims, like Sic utere tuo ut aliebzum izon evdas, are just platitudes that cannot be put into practice until the law is determined. The traditional moral precept Sic utere Iuo ut alienum non Zadas,[26] or "So use your own as not to injure another," is frequently applied in the legal system. Strictly speaking, however, it can only mean that you do no harm to another person's property that is permitted by law. Legal damage, also known as actionable harm, arises solely from an unlawful conduct and, to put it succinctly, is equivalent to the following: "You shall not interfere with another person's legal rights by committing an unlawful act," or "Injury resulting from an unlawful act is actionable."Equitas sequitur legem and Lex sequitur eqiitatem[27] is applicable equally.Numerous contemporary doctrines of common law appear to be inexorably tethered to antecedent determinations rendered by equity courts that arrived at analogous conclusions. Nevertheless, one cannot gainsay the observable trend wherein the law persistently gravitates toward principles of equity, arguably exacerbated by the compelling allure of societal imperatives.

In the seminal case of Regina v. Tolson (1889),[28] Mr. Justice Stephen opined that the term "mens rea" is fraught with undesirable connotations and is prone to engendering confusion.[29] This term suggests the existence of a "guilty mind," ostensibly an invariant element in the taxonomy of criminal culpability, yet this assertion is fundamentally flawed, as it belies the substantial variations in the mental states requisite for the commission of disparate offenses.In his magnum opus, A History of the Criminal Law of England (1883), Sir J. F. Stephen elucidates that the maxim "mens rea" merely posits that nearly every criminal act encompasses both a mental element and an external, manifest component, the latter of which is contingent upon the specific nature of the offense in question. Consequently, he contends that a comprehensive examination of the definitions pertinent to individual crimes is paramount for a robust understanding of the concept of "mens rea"; thus, the term itself is rendered essentially vacuous without such contextual elucidation.[30]When a genuine and helpful maxim is overused, it might impede research on crucial issues. Although it isn't forbidden by law, the idea behind "In jure, causa proximna, non remnota,spectatur"[31] should not be confused with the objective. It may be interpreted as suggesting that the antecedent that is nearest in time or space is the legal cause, but it does not assist us in determining when a cause is proximate or remote.[32]

Anglo-American Practices

In the Anglo-American legal paradigm, the evidentiary threshold for criminal adjudications is enshrined as proof beyond a reasonable doubt,[33] in stark contrast to the civil litigation standard,[34] which is predicated upon the preponderance of evidence or the balance of probabilities.[35] The criminal standard necessitates an evidentiary foundation that accommodates no unreasonable doubts regarding the accused's culpability; should the evidence engender a rational belief in the defendant's guilt while simultaneously rendering any doubt unreasonable, the prosecution is thereby entitled to a favourable verdict.Conversely, in civil adjudications, fact-finders are tasked with determining the outcome in favour of the party whose assertions are more robustly substantiated by the evidence presented and meticulously appraised.[36] In formulations that expressly invoke probabilities, the party whose claim appears more probable is entitled to a resolution in its favour. However, qualitative formulations such as "beyond a reasonable doubt" necessitate nuanced interpretation, while quantitative assessments framed in probabilistic terms risk devolving into an artifice of precision that may obscure the underlying complexities of legal reasoning.Legal reasoning is fundamentally concerned with the normative frameworks that govern a particular case, which may encompass legal rules, standards, or overarching principles. Decision-makers frequently rely upon authoritative texts, materials, and precedents, the clarity and consensus of which are often mired in ambiguity and contention. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" has emerged as a prevailing tenet throughout the 20th century, encapsulating the enduring commitment to due process within the criminal justice system.[37]In the annum 1948, the United Nations duly incorporated the principle within Article Eleven, Section One of its Declaration of Human Rights.[38] This venerable adage subsequently found its way into the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 14, Section 2),[39] as well as the 1953 European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (Article 6, Section 2). For the American polity, this development was met with approbation, given that few maxims are as profoundly entrenched in the corpus of Anglo-American common law jurisprudence as this one.

The profound reverence that Anglo-Americans bestow upon this maxim presents a captivating conundrum: it is conspicuously absent from foundational texts such as the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights of 1689,[40] the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and notably from the treatises of the eminent English jurists Bracton, Coke, and Blackstone.[41] Notwithstanding this notable absence, certain scholars contend that this maxim has been indelibly imprinted upon the tapestry of English law since antiquity.

In the American legal framework, it has effectively metamorphosed into a foundational principle or presumption. The pivotal moment at which this maxim attained legal enforceability in the United States can be meticulously traced to the landmark decision in Coffin v. U.S. (1894).[42] In this case, the jury was not apprised of the critical instruction that "the law presumes that persons charged with crime are innocent until proven guilty by competent evidence," a procedural oversight that served as a cornerstone for the subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court. This rejection by the lower court became a salient element in the appellate proceedings, underpinning the very essence of due process.

Integrating Legal Maxims into Curriculum

Public legal education,[43] in its broadest articulation, constitutes a confluence of non-formal educational endeavours principally directed toward marginalized or disadvantaged demographics, with the overarching aim of augmenting access to justice and fostering social cohesion. The normative aspiration of the rule of law, underscored by its inherent presuppositions of security and stability, derives its legitimizing impetus from the public's cognizance of legal frameworks and the concomitant informational and educational processes. These principles, however, often obfuscate a historical tapestry woven with threads of political oppression and brutality, which continues to haunt the legal apparatus; such historical erasure is exacerbated by the negligence of the political philosophy underpinning legal education. The pivotal role of legal information in the public sphere not only underscores the potential for alternative, critical engagements with legal systems but also fundamentally challenges the entrenched juridical-political order.

The pedagogical quandary resides in the imperative for comprehensive professional education. While it is improbable that aspirants will encounter the entirety of legal issues in practice,[44] their training ought to equip them to grapple with a broad spectrum of challenges pertinent to their profession. Conversely, the unpredictable nature of professional practice engenders a sporadic rather than exhaustive engagement with legal dilemmas. Should practical instruction hinge exclusively upon experiential learning, numerous pivotal issues would inevitably be overlooked. This prevailing pedagogical dilemma accentuates the necessity of a robust professional education, particularly for nascent attorneys. A solid educational foundation is indispensable in preparing trainees to confront a myriad of professional challenges, notwithstanding the reality that not every conceivable issue will arise in their practice. Reliance solely on experiential learning may engender significant deficits in their knowledge and competencies. Essential legal practice skills encompass proficient problem-solving, legal evaluation, analytical rigor, factual inquiry, effective communication, guidance, and discourse, as well as a thorough understanding of case law and alternative dispute resolution methodologies, coupled with administrative competencies requisite for the organization and supervision of legal undertakings. Furthermore, it is paramount that these aspirants cultivate the ability to identify and navigate ethical dilemmas inherent to the legal profession.Maxims serve as indispensable instruments within legal systems;[45] however, their potential for misinterpretation and misapplication is considerable. A maxim must be articulated succinctly to attain recognition, yet this brevity may engender misconceptions regarding its true meaning and applicability. For instance, a phrase designed to delineate an exception may be erroneously construed as a universal principle, or an aphorism intended solely to assert a particular truth may be misconstrued as an all-encompassing declaration of truth.Certain maxims, such as Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas,[46]are merely linguistic constructs that cannot be operationalized until the law is duly ascertained. Conversely, the maxim Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas,[47] translated as "So use your own as not to injure another," is an established moral axiom frequently invoked within legal contexts, yet it is circumscribed in its application to the principle that one must refrain from inflicting legal harm upon another's property.

The maxim pertaining to ‘mens rea’ articulates that the conceptualization of virtually all offenses encompasses not merely an external and manifest component, but also a mental element, which diverges in accordance with the distinct nature of various crimes. A comprehensive understanding of the term ‘mens rea’ necessitates a meticulous dissection of the definitions pertinent to specific offenses; thus, the term itself remains somewhat nebulous in isolation.Moreover, a maxim that possesses inherent truth and utility within its designated context may, paradoxically, engender an overestimation that stifles critical inquiry regarding salient issues. For instance, the adage In jure, causa proxima, non remota, spectaturpersists within the legal lexicon,[48] yet it should not be misconstrued as the ultimate objective, for it fails to elucidate the criteria by which a cause may be deemed proximate or remote. Indeed, many such maxims operate as prima facie rules“good servants, but bad masters”often yielding guidance that may obfuscate deeper legal complexities.

In this regard, a rule of construction ought invariably to be interpreted as encompassing the caveat: "unless a contrary intention appears by the instrument." This stipulation serves as a crucial reminder that the application of legal principles is contingent upon the specificities of each case, thereby preserving the necessary flexibility required for nuanced legal interpretation.[49]

The Dynamics of Legal Reasoning

The evolution, exegesis, implementation, and abrogation of legal normsencompassing rules, standards, or principlesconstitute the focal subjects of legal reasoning. Legislators engage in discursive deliberations regarding the genesis and dissolution of such norms,[50] or, more precisely, the promulgation and rescission of normative statutes by the apex legal authority. Predicated upon empirical data concerning salient facts and the hermeneutics of relevant legal texts, judges and other adjudicative officials predominantly contest the modalities of normative application.

Legal reasoning constitutes an indispensable facet of case law, facilitating the nuanced interpretation of statutes and constitutional provisions. This reasoning transpires as a triadic process, delineated by the doctrine of precedent, wherein a proposition emanating from an initial adjudication is transmuted into a binding rule of law, subsequently applied to analogous circumstances. While this methodology is vital for the cohesion of legal frameworks, it is not devoid of imperfections. The crux of the legal process resides in the discerning of similarity or divergence, a pivotal task incumbent upon each adjudicator. In the absence of statutory provisions, a judge is unencumbered by the dictates of prior judicial pronouncements, which may be rendered as mere obiter dictum. Consequently, a contemporary judge may ascertain the significanceor lack thereofof factual elements deemed pertinent by antecedent jurists, opting instead to underscore facts previously considered inconsequential.[51]

Moreover, reasoning by exemplification serves a critical function in elucidating the extent to which the law exerts its influence over litigants, concurrently underscoring the determinative role played by conventional notions and classifications articulated by legal experts in the evolution of jurisprudence. The transference of common or expert concepts into the legal domain can be meticulously traced, albeit such transmutations may not invariably garner the approbation of the judiciary. This form of reasoning accentuates the similarities and distinctions inherent in the interpretation of case law, statutory provisions, and constitutional tenets.It is imperative to recognize that ambiguity is an inescapable element within both statutes and constitutional texts, and reasoning by example operates concurrently within all three legal realms. Judicial discretion is circumscribed in the application of statutes compared to case law, as the interpretative framework may shift. The elucidation of legislative intent necessitates a comparative analysis of cases predicated upon the prevailing standards at the time of a statute's enactment. However, judicial commentary typically aims to delineate a category established by the legislature, thereby charting the trajectory of the statute; subsequent reasoning in later cases is inextricably linked to this foundational categorization.[52]

The division of function between court and legislature also recognizes the impossibility of determining legislative intent. Courts often appeal to the constitution as a necessary justification for overruling cases, even though these cases are thought to have interpreted the legislation erroneously. In the United States, courts have greater freedom in applying statutes or case law than in statutes or case law. In case law, judges determine the controlling similarity between the present and prior case, and in interpreting legislation, they cannot ignore the results of many cases that cannot be explained under a remade rule.The development, implementation, and extinction of legal normsrules, standards, or principlesare the focus of legal reasoning. The birth and death of normsor, to put it more formally, the adoption and revocation of norms by the supreme legal authoritiesare topics of contention for legislators and law makers. On the basis of their interpretations of the pertinent legal texts, judges and other officials debate the application of rules. Particularly in the court setting, participants debate pertinent facts and how the law should be applied to them.

The legislative process is characterized by a dialectical exchange of justifications, manifest during parliamentary debates surrounding proposed statutes, as well as in broader political or academic discourses pertaining to the bill. Within these deliberative arenas, ethical, political, and economic rationales frequently collide with legal arguments, engendering a complex interplay of considerations. In the context of legal proceedings, parties engage in a reciprocal process of proffering and soliciting reasons before a judge or court. Should this process encompass lawmaking, legal justifications will critically assess the merits or deficiencies of the nascent legislation; conversely, if the focus is predominantly on the interpretation and application of extant legal frameworks, the discourse will center on the appropriateness of specific interpretive stances and applications.Judges are often mandated to exercise restraint in the application of current legislation in certain jurisdictions, whereas in others they may possess the discretionary authority to enact new laws subsequent to the analysis and interpretation of pertinent texts. Furthermore, in the majority of jurisdictions, judges are obliged to furnish justifications for their rulings.[53] In instances where their role necessitates a scrupulous comprehension and application of the law, judges must elucidate the rationale underpinning their decisions within those domains.Such justifications are customarily articulated in written form, encapsulated within formal documents wherein judges expound upon their decisions and the reasoning that informs them. Written judicial opinions delineate the arguments proffered for and against specific rulings, allowing for the reconstruction of these arguments into foundational patterns or schemes of reasoning. In the courtroom milieu, disputants initially submit these arguments, which judges then have the discretion to accept or reject based on their appraisal of the veracity of the parties’ interpretive and applicative assertions. When the purview of their decision-making extends beyond the arguments presented by the parties, judges may also introduce supplementary justifications.

The reasoning articulated by both parties and judges is publicly disseminated, whether orally or in written form, constituting a paradigmatic instance of legal argumentation. This public exposition of reasons, which supports or contests a litigated claim, is predicated upon logical frameworks or reasoning patterns deemed apposite within the particular legal context.

Legal Reasoning in Economic Discourse

Legal reasoning in legislative contexts is characterized by presenting reasons that are not only legal but also political, economic, or moral. Economics is a scientific and objective field that investigates the causes and effects of economic behavior.[54]Economists have devised a plethora of methodologies to scrutinize legal phenomena, primarily concentrating on the economic repercussions engendered by legal statutes. They posit that the law transcends its conventional role as a mere arbiter of peaceful conflict resolution; it significantly influences transaction costs, moral hazard, and the incentives for innovation. By examining these economic ramifications, economists aspire to enhance the efficacy of the legal system. However, their analyses often gravitate toward the outcomes of judicial determinations or the motivational determinants and institutional milieu shaping judicial conduct, thereby frequently neglecting the intricacies of legal processes and doctrines. This oversight is intrinsically linked to economic models that prioritize instrumental rationality and aggregative welfare measures.Notwithstanding this limitation, economic principles can illuminate policy discussions and furnish critical insights into the adjudicative process, whether by integrating arguments within the legal discourse or maintaining an external vantage point. The institutional characteristics underpinning legal decision-making particularly the availability of data, resources, and the educational background of judges profoundly affect the incorporation of economic considerations into legal arguments. This interplay may engender a perceived dissonance between the argumentative modalities of economics and law, often culminating in mutual misinterpretation and distrust. However, when analysed through the prism of classical rhetoric and practical reasoning, the divergences between contemporary economic argumentspredicated on deductive reasoning and statistical extrapolationsand legal reasoning, which is fundamentally persuasive in nature, may prove to be more illusory than substantive. Both domains engage in a methodical reflection on pragmatic concerns and are underpinned by a shared commitment to practical rationality.

Legal arguments including literal interpretations,[55] inferences drawn from legislative silence, psychological motivations, teleological considerations,[56] analogical reasoning, precedential authority, systemic coherence, normative principles, and notions of equity derive their normative substance from legal texts,[57] necessitating interpretation and contextual application. Particularly noteworthy is the function of analogical reasoning, which serves an integrative purpose by elucidating pertinent similarities or distinctions between cases, adhering to the principle of treating analogous cases consistently while allowing for differentiated treatment where warranted. For instance, an analogy may propose that a case lacking regulation bears substantial resemblance to a regulated counterpart, thus advocating for uniform treatment under the law.In judicial contexts, the technical nature of claims and arguments often predominates, necessitating that economic reasoning possess legal pertinence to be deemed acceptable. Such arguments must articulate rationales that either align with established legal norms or resonate with principles upheld by the legal framework. Economists have historically exhibited a keen interest in the economic implications of judicial decisions and the broader legal process, resulting in a substantial corpus of literature. This systematic inquiry aims to bolster the potential impact of economic arguments on pivotal legal determinations and to advocate for a transformative approach to the contribution of economics within public discourse surrounding adjudication. Theoretical and empirical insights regarding judicial decision-making possess significant implications for both minor legal reforms and extensive institutional design. Traditionally, legal reasoning particularly within the judiciary has maintained a retrospective orientation, focusing on the justification of decisions pertaining to historical facts. There exists a rich tradition and vibrant academic discourse dedicated to unpacking the nuances of legal reasoning through hermeneutical, logical, or rhetorical frameworks.

Argumentative Reasoning via Interpretation

The act of interpretation, serving both as the progenitor and the culmination of legal discourse, positions legal interpretation—conceived broadly as the act of ascribing meaning to legal texts—as a profoundly contentious enterprise. This contention manifests in two principal dimensions. Primarily, interpretations proffered by disparate stakeholders engaged in the interpretive dialogue necessitate robust argumentative foundations, particularly when the meaning of the pertinent legal source becomes a subject of dispute within a given context. For instance, in Dunnachie v. Kingston-upon-Hull City Council,[58] the crux of the matter revolved around whether the term "loss," as articulated in Article 117 of the Employment Rights Act,[59] encapsulated emotional detriment or was confined exclusively to pecuniary losses. The judiciary, in their deliberations, invoked an array of interpretive frameworks, drawing upon legislative history, the overarching labour law paradigm, and the intentions of the legislators, in an endeavour to ascertain the veracity of the term's interpretation. Conversely, interpretive adjudications furnish the requisite epistemic apparatus for classificatory arguments that endeavour to transpose the law onto specific factual matrices.[60] The application of a legal precept to a singular situation necessitates a recalibration of the relevant legal texts, wherein interpretive reasoning is deployed. For instance, the assertion that Mr. Jones, a wrongfully dismissed employee, is precluded from recovery for emotional "loss" finds its genesis in a statutory stipulation delineating that recompense for wrongful termination is limited strictly to monetary losses. This proposition is predicated upon an interpretation of the term "loss" within Article 117 of the Employment Rights Act of 1996 in the United Kingdom, which explicitly excludes emotional harm.[61]

The implicit and presumptive reasoning frequently inherent in interpretative disputes must be articulated through persuasive argumentative frameworks advocating for or against a particular interpretation attributed to the text in question. Indubitably, interpretive argumentation represents a distinct modality of practical legal reasoning, wherein an individual advance a novel interpretation of authoritative texts or materials, thus constructing a rationale for specific legal conclusions. By meticulously considering the linguistic (pragmatic) dimensions of interpretation, one can elucidate the distinctive characteristics intrinsic to this specialized form of argumentative practice.

Where do Pragmatics and Argumentation Conflate?

In elucidating the interplay between pragmatics and argumentation within the realm of legal interpretation, one can delineate two distinct approaches through the lens of argumentative analysis, particularly when scrutinizing heuristics and the established canons of interpretation.[62] The first approach, characterized as direct interpretive reasoning, assigns meaning uncritically, devoid of consideration for alternative readings. Conversely, the second approach, termed dialectical reasoning, necessitates the rigorous evaluation of arguments both in favor of and against a chosen interpretation, alongside the plausibility of competing interpretations. This bifurcation engenders two distinct categories of interpretative reasoning: deliberative reasoning, employed in scenarios where ambiguity or contradictions arise, and prima facie reasoning, which proffers an initial meaning derived from straightforward computation.

According to scholars Dascal and Wróblewski,[63] clarity emerges as a pragmatic construct that signifies a state wherein the meaning of a text is readily apparent, either a priori or through the process of interpretive discourse. In instances of ambiguity, where discordance arises between the interpreted meaning and the contextual circumstances, the justification of interpretation becomes imperative. The endeavour to forge a framework capable of evaluating interpretive arguments—one that integrates various legal canons alongside pragmatic maxims as a basis for justifiable reasoning predicated upon disparate presumptions poses a formidable intellectual challenge. Such an effort culminates in a non-monotonic, abductive reasoning paradigm, thereby allowing for a dialectical reconstruction of meaning when initial interpretations are contested.[64]

The interpretive process itself comprises several stages:[65] contextualization of a statement, the raising of inquiries regarding its sufficiency, the pursuit and evaluation of multiple interpretations, culminating in the selection of the most compelling interpretation. Pragmatics, as a discipline, interrogates the intricate relationship between linguistic codes, communicative agents, and the context of social interaction. It accentuates the manner in which meaning is constructed and inferred amidst social exchanges, with the speaker's intent serving as the fulcrum of communication.

The disparity between sentential and utterance meanings is reconstructed through pragmatic mechanisms encompassing enrichment, disambiguation, and implicatures.[66] Pragmatic analysis applied to statutory texts posits that the processes governing the interplay between sentential meaning and utterance meaning in quotidian discourse may likewise extend to legislative language. Both forms of communication exhibit commonalities, such as linguistic application, thematic content, and purposive interpretation. Nonetheless, the utilization of pragmatic principles for deciphering legislative meaning is imbued with particularities, given that legislative discourse is inherently one-sided and its utterances are not truth-functional.

The validation of pragmatic maxims pertinent to statutes mirrors that of ordinary discourse, with the appropriateness of such maxims serving as a prerequisite for the sensible comprehension, application, and guiding of behaviour in response to legislative texts. This imperfect alignment between ordinary and legal communication, coupled with the paramount role of pragmatics in the interpretation of texts, engenders a pressing conundrum, thereby linking inquiries in linguistic pragmatics with theoretical frameworks of legal interpretation.

Inference to the Best Interpretation

The notion of "inference to the best interpretation" augments the understanding that interpretative endeavours are intrinsically influenced by heuristics,[67] which yield conversational implicatures.[68] This principle posits that in contexts characterized by multiple plausible interpretations essentially where ambiguities emerge preference ought to be accorded to the "best interpretation." Such an optimal interpretation is deemed to be that which most harmoniously aligns with the shared presuppositions of the context while also resonating with the communicative objectives of the speaker, predicated on "what he has said. “In this paradigm, conversational implicatures serve a dual function: they mitigate the necessity for exhaustive critical evaluations of alternative interpretations and concurrently constrain the pursuit of abductive elucidations. Conversely, a rigorous interpretive process aptly designated as the inference to the best interpretation becomes imperative when conflicts among incompatible heuristics remain obstinately unresolved.

To elucidate this concept, consider the heuristic framework that ascribes stereotypical meanings to the term 'loss,' particularly as it pertains to financial detriment. This heuristic facilitates a pragmatic interpretation and elucidates the rationale behind the legislator’s choice to employ the term "loss" in a manner devoid of elaborative detail. It is reasonable to surmise that the legislator deliberately employed this terminology to convey the singular notion of financial loss, especially given the entrenched nature of such a colloquial understanding.

Thus, the interplay between heuristic attributions and interpretative precision underscores the complexity inherent in legal interpretation, where the demand for clarity must be balanced against the potential for ambiguities and competing meanings. This tension not only informs the interpretive process but also delineates the contours within which legal discourse operates, necessitating a nuanced approach that accommodates both pragmatic considerations and the exigencies of legal clarity.

The Contestation of Prima Facie Interpretations

Prima facie interpretations may be subject to contestation when the semantic underpinnings of a legal text manifest imprecision or ambiguity, thereby engendering divergent readings. Such contestation may also arise when the application of this semantic meaning to specific circumstances provokes objections regarding its pertinence. Consequently, what emerges is a singular interpretation, posited as the primary meaning, which necessitates rigorous evaluation against alternative interpretations, followed by thorough discourse and eventual endorsement or repudiation. To elucidate, consider the term "vehicles" within a legal context, particularly its application to scenarios involving ambulances. The most widely accepted interpretation is typically that which encounters the least resistance from conflicting presumptions, demonstrating minimal contentiousness and garnering substantial support from favourable presumptions. Notably, the burden of proof does not pertain to an uncontested prima facie interpretation; rather, it remains tenable until disproven. This delineation between prima facie and deliberative interpretation is pivotal. Utilizing foundational heuristics, including appeals to common meanings, the prima facie interpretation can persist even when contested, provided it lacks supporting evidence. However, the integrity of the prima facie interpretation is contingent upon the articulation of an alternative interpretation rooted in a distinct heuristic framework or contextual backdrop. In such instances, it may be deemed controversial, necessitating further substantiation.

Arguments favouring a particular interpretation must be bolstered by empirical evidence, and when logical inconsistencies or competing interpretations arise, the initial meaning cedes precedence to a subsequent interpretation, which must then demonstrate its superiority. This procedural dynamic encompasses a logical dimension that can be explored through the dialectical and inferential relationships inherent in both interpretive methodologies. Ultimately, prima facie interpretations are regarded as satisfactory when the interpreter arrives at a definitive, unambiguous conclusion predicated on the semantic meaning of the text and applicable interpretative heuristics. In this manner, the interplay between prima facie interpretations and deliberative reasoning exemplifies the complexities of legal interpretation, wherein clarity must be negotiated amidst the multiplicity of meanings.

Conclusion 

In conclusion, this exploration of the hermeneutics of legal maxims within common law jurisprudence underscores the profound interplay between interpretative frameworks and the epistemology of legal thought. By dissecting the multifaceted nature of legal maxims, we have illuminated their role as both foundational principles and evolving constructs that respond to the socio-economic realities of their time. This inquiry has revealed how legal maxims serve not merely as static rules but as dynamic instruments that facilitate nuanced interpretations and adaptations in the face of contemporary challenges.

The historical evolution of these maxims, particularly in the context of criminal law, highlights their significance in shaping judicial reasoning and legal outcomes across diverse jurisdictions.[69] As this study has shown, the dialogue between tradition and innovation is essential for fostering clarity and coherence in legal interpretation. Furthermore, by situating legal maxims within an epistemological framework, we have gained insights into how legal meanings are constructed, contested, and transformed.

Ultimately, this study contributes to the ongoing discourse in legal hermeneutics, emphasizing the need for a rigorous engagement with the principles that underpin legal reasoning. As we continue to grapple with the complexities of legal interpretation, the lessons drawn from this analysis can serve as a guiding compass for both legal scholars and practitioners alike. The intricate dance between established maxims and emergent legal contexts invites a continuous revaluation of how we understand, apply, and innovate within the realm of common law jurisprudence.

[1]‘Legal Scholarship - an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics’ <https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/legal-scholarship> accessed 20 September 2024.

[2]‘Federal Register :: Circumvention of Lawful Pathways’ <https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/16/2023-10146/circumvention-of-lawful-pathways> accessed 20 September 2024.

[3]‘IMPORTANT LEGAL MAXIMS AND PHRASES FOR CLAT – Abhyaas Law Prep’ <https://lawprep.in/important-legal-maxims-and-phrases-for-clat/> accessed 20 September 2024.

[4]Suyash Verma, ‘Contemporary Significance of Legal Maxims in Statutory Construction: Analysis and Comments’ (13 July 2012) <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2131485> accessed 20 September 2024.

[5]admin, ‘Legal Maxims Used By Courts in India | IIPRD’ (14 May 2020) <https://www.iiprd.com/legal-maxims-used-by-courts-in-india/> accessed 20 September 2024.

[6]Mateusz Zeifert and Zygmunt Tobor, ‘Legal Translation Versus Legal Interpretation. A Legal-Theoretical Perspective’ (2022) 35 International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 1671.

[7]Sayed Qudrat Hashimy, ‘Catalyzing Legal Systems: The Crucial Role of Juristic Writing’ (2023) 9 VBCL LAW REVIEW <https://vbclaw.edu.in/assets/users/Academics/LawReview-2023/VBCLLawReviewweb.pdf>.

[8]Luqman Zakariyah, ‘Legal Maxims and Islamic Financial Transactions: A Case Study of Mortgage Contracts and the Dilemma for Muslims in Britain’ (2012) 26 Arab Law Quarterly 255.

[9]Alberto Alemanno and Lamin Khadar (eds), ‘Reinventing Legal Education: How Clinical Education Is Reforming the Teaching and Practice of Law in Europe’, Reinventing Legal Education: How Clinical Education Is Reforming the Teaching and Practice of Law in Europe (Cambridge University Press 2018) <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/reinventing-legal-education/reinventing-legal-education/CFF09E535F5783D0CC2FD39D1DB8C8B1> accessed 17 September 2024.

[10]Herbert Broom, Selection of Legal Maxims ... (Cornell University Library 1845) <https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/hcklibrary/PDF/1874_broom_a_selection_of_legal_maxims.pdf>.

[11]Ian Williams, ‘The Role of Rules : Legal Maxims in Early-Modern Common Law Principle and Practice’ in Maksymilian Del Mar and Michael Lobban (eds), Law in theory and history: new essays on a neglected dialogue (Hart Publishing 2016).

[12]JH Baker, ‘Sir John Melton’s Case (1535): Cockermouth Castle and the Three Silver Luces’ (1996) 55 The Cambridge Law Journal 249.

[13]JH Baker, ‘Sir John Melton’s Case (1535): Cockermouth Castle and the Three Silver Luces’ (1996) 55 The Cambridge Law Journal 249.

[14]Robert Hertz, ‘The Pre-Eminence of the Right Hand: A Study in Religious Polarity’ (2013) 3 HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory 335.

[15]Baker (n 15).

[16]ibid.

[17]Sir John Doddridge, The English Lawyer: Describing a Method for the Managing of the Lawes of This Land, and Expressing the Best Qualities Requisite in the Student, Practizer, Judges and Fathers of the Same (Professional Books, Limited 1631).

[18]Anne Peters, ‘The Refinement of International Law: From Fragmentation to Regime Interaction and Politicization’ (2017) 15 International Journal of Constitutional Law 671.

[19]Michael Lobban, ‘The Age of Sir Edward Coke’ in Michael Lobban (ed), A Treatise of Legal Philosophy and General Jurisprudence: Volume 8: A History of the Philosophy of Law in The Common Law World, 1600–1900 (Springer Netherlands 2016) <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-0913-0_2> accessed 17 September 2024.

[20]JW Tubbs, ‘Custom, Time and Reason: Early Seventeenth-Century Conceptions of the Common Law’ (1998) 19 History of Political Thought 363.

[21]Gary Lilienthal and Safinaz Mohd Hussein, ‘Reasoned Elaboration of Equitable Maxims’ (2020) 46 Commonwealth Law Bulletin 1.

[22]ibid.

[23]Gerald J Postema, ‘Philosophy of the Common Law’ in Jules L Coleman, Kenneth Einar Himma and Scott J Shapiro (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law (Oxford University Press 2004) <https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270972.013.0015> accessed 17 September 2024.

[24]Tara Leevy, ‘Intellectual Property and Access to Medicine for the Poor’ (2006) 8 AMA Journal of Ethics 834.

[25]Lilienthal and Mohd Hussein (n 23).

[26]Subramanya T. R, ‘Emergence of Principle of Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non-Laedes in Environmental Law and Its Endorsement by International and National Courts: An Assessment’ (2017) <https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=4691409> accessed 20 September 2024.

[27]Aaron X Fellmeth and Maurice Horwitz, ‘Aequitas Sequitur Legem’, Guide to Latin in International Law (Oxford University Press 2011) <https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780195369380.001.0001/acref-9780195369380-e-153> accessed 20 September 2024.

[28]‘R v. Tolson (1889) - 2nd Marriage on Belief of Death of Husband - Others Judgements’ <https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/judiciary/r-v-tolson-1889-2nd-marriage-on-belief-of-death-of-husband-4825.asp> accessed 20 September 2024.

[29]DJ MacDougall, ‘The Burden of Proof in Bigamy’ (1958) 21 The Modern Law Review 510.

[30]Luca Siliquini-Cinelli, ‘What Is Legal Reasoning?’ [2024] International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-024-10141-3> accessed 17 September 2024.

[31]‘CAUSA PROXIMA, NON REMOTA SPECTATOR - Jus Corpus’ (5 September 2021) <https://www.juscorpus.com/causa-proxima-non-remota-spectator/> accessed 20 September 2024.

[32]Siliquini-Cinelli (n 32).

[33]Lucia Zedner and Carl-Friedrich Stuckenberg, ‘Due Process’ in Alexander Heinze and others (eds), Core Concepts in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Volume I, vol 1 (Cambridge University Press 2020) <https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/core-concepts-in-criminal-law-and-criminal-justice/due-process/DB991C16B8CC45DB4CB5D60105CC34ED> accessed 20 September 2024.

[34]J Harvie Wilkinson, ‘The Presumption of Civil Innocence’ (2018) 104 Virginia Law Review 589.

[35]Alex Stein, ‘Foundations of Evidence Law’ [2005] Foundations of Evidence Law.

[36]Athina Sachoulidou, ‘Going beyond the “Common Suspects”: To Be Presumed Innocent in the Era of Algorithms, Big Data and Artificial Intelligence’ [2023] Artificial Intelligence and Law <https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-023-09347-w> accessed 20 September 2024.

[37]Kenneth Pennington, ‘Innocent Until Proven Guilty: The Origins of a Legal Maxim’ [2003] Scholarly Articles <https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar/172>.

[38]United Nations, ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ (United Nations) <https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights> accessed 20 September 2024.

[39]‘International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights | OHCHR’ <https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights> accessed 20 September 2024.

[40]‘English Bill of Rights ‑ Definition & Legacy | HISTORY’ <https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/english-bill-of-rights> accessed 20 September 2024.

[41]JOSHUA GETZLER, ‘4 Blackstone’s and Hale’s Doctrines of Land and Water Use’ in Joshua Getzler (ed), A History of Water Rights at Common Law (Oxford University Press 2006) <https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199207602.003.0005> accessed 20 September 2024.

[42]‘U.S. Reports: Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895).’ (Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540 USA) <https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep156432/> accessed 20 September 2024.

[43]‘Defining PLE’ (Public Legal Education) <https://www.plecanada.org/what-is-ple/defining-ple/> accessed 20 September 2024.

[44]Sanjit Kumar Chakraborty and Tushar Krishna, ‘Promises and Prospects of Legal Education in India in the Context of the New Education Policy: A Reality Check’ (2022) 9 Asian Journal of Legal Education 64.

[45]Jeremiah Smith, ‘The Use of Maxims in Jurisprudence’ (1895) 9 Harvard Law Review 13.

[46]GA I., ‘Sic Utere Tuo Ut Alienum Non Laedas’ (1907) 5 Michigan Law Review 673.

[47]Gayathri D Naik, ‘Leslie-Anne Duvic-Paoli, The Prevention Principle in International Environmental Law’ (2018) 29 Yearbook of International Environmental Law 522.

[48]Wan Izatul Asma Wan Talaat, ‘Causa Proxima Non Remota Spectatur: The Doctrine of Causation in the Law of Marine Insurance’ (2003) 34 Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 479.

[49]Aaron X Fellmeth and Maurice Horwitz, ‘Causa Proxima Non Remota Inspicitur’, Guide to Latin in International Law (Oxford University Press 2011) <https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780195369380.001.0001/acref-9780195369380-e-335> accessed 20 September 2024.

[50]Edward L Rubin, ‘Law and Legislation in the Administrative State’ (1989) 89 Columbia Law Review 369.

[51]Asif Hameed, ‘Parliament’s Constitution: Legislative Disruption of Implied Repeal’ (2023) 43 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 429.

[52]Vaibhav Yadav, ‘The Sedition Conundrum in India: A Critical Examination of Its Historical Evolution, Current Application and Constitutional Validity’ (2023) 61 International Annals of Criminology 188.

[53]Lea Raible, ‘Jurisdiction and Justification’ in Lea Raible (ed), Human Rights Unbound: A Theory of Extraterritoriality (Oxford University Press 2020) <https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198863373.003.0004> accessed 20 September 2024.

[54]Keith N Hylton, ‘Law and Economics versus Economic Analysis of Law’ (2019) 48 European Journal of Law and Economics 77.

[55]Wayne Davis, ‘Implicature Theories’, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy and Psychology (2016).

[56]Michael Waibel, ‘Interpretive Communities in International Law’ in Andrea Bianchi, Daniel Peat and Matthew Windsor (eds), Interpretation in International Law (Oxford University Press 2015) <https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198725749.003.0007> accessed 20 September 2024.

[57]ibid.

[58]‘Dunnachie v Kingston Upon Hull City Council, [2004] 2 All ER 501 | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division), Judgment, Law, Casemine.Com’ (https://www.casemine.com) <https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff7b160d03e7f57eb146f> accessed 20 September 2024.

[59]Expert Participation, ‘Employment Rights Act 1996’ <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/section/117> accessed 20 September 2024.

[60]Mark Greenberg, ‘Implications of Indeterminacy: Naturalism in Epistemology and the Philosophy of Law Ii’ (2011) 30 Law and Philosophy 453.

[61]‘Employment Rights Act 1996’ <https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/18/contents> accessed 20 September 2024.

[62]Douglas Walton, Fabrizio Macagno and Giovanni Sartor, Statutory Interpretation. Pragmatics and Argumentation (2020).

[63]Vibha Kaushik and Christine A Walsh, ‘Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm and Its Implications for Social Work Research’ (2019) 8 Social Sciences 255.

[64]Philipp Koralus, ‘The Open Instruction Theory of Attitude Reports and the Pragmatics of Answers’ (2012) 12 Philosopher’s Imprint <http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.3521354.0012.014> accessed 20 September 2024.

[65]Nikola Kompa, ‘Meaning and Interpretation’ in Sarah-Jane Conrad and Klaus Petrus (eds), Meaning, Context and Methodology (De Gruyter Mouton 2017) <https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781501504327-005/html?lang=en> accessed 20 September 2024.

[66]Gilbert H Harman, ‘The Inference to the Best Explanation’ (1965) 74 The Philosophical Review 88.

[67]Fabrizio Macagno, Douglas Walton and Giovanni Sartor, ‘Pragmatic Maxims and Presumptions in Legal Interpretation’ (2018) 37 Law and Philosophy 69.

[68]Frank Cabrera, ‘Inference to the Best Explanation: An Overview’ in Lorenzo Magnani (ed), Handbook of Abductive Cognition (Springer International Publishing 2022) <https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68436-5_77-1> accessed 20 September 2024.

[69]admin, ‘New Criminal Laws in India: Complete Guide’ (LexisNexis Blogs, 8 February 2024) <https://www.lexisnexis.in/blogs/new-criminal-laws-in-india/> accessed 20 September 2024.