Colquhoun v. Brooks
Rule established
The ejusdem generis rule requires that the specific words forming the genus must constitute a distinct category or class. If the specific words do not share a common genus, the general words following them receive their full natural meaning without restriction.
Facts
- Taxpayer received income from a source described as "annual payment"
- Revenue assessed it under the provision taxing "interest, annuities, or any other annual payment"
- Taxpayer argued ejusdem generis: "other annual payment" should be limited to things similar to interest and annuities
Issue
- Whether the ejusdem generis rule applies when the specific words do not form a distinct identifiable class.
Held
- Ejusdem generis presupposes a genus (common category) among the specific words
- "Interest" and "annuities" are dissimilar; they do not form a coherent genus
- Since no genus exists, the general words "any other annual payment" retain their full natural meaning
- Revenue's assessment upheld
Ratio Decidendi
The ejusdem generis rule applies only where specific words preceding the general words share a common genus or category. Where the specific words are too diverse to form a recognisable class, the general words receive their ordinary unrestricted meaning.
How to use it in an exam
- Authority for when ejusdem generis does NOT apply
- Shows the prerequisite: specific words must form a genus
- Key line: "In Colquhoun v. Brooks (1888), the court held that ejusdem generis does not apply where the specific words preceding the general term do not share a common genus."
Source
Source: (1888) 21 QBD 52
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.
Cited in study notes
Interpretation of StatutesMaxims Ejusdem Generis Noscitur Expressio UniusAuthority for when ejusdem generis does NOT apply