When interpreting an ambiguous provision

    When interpreting an ambiguous provision, it is presumed that the court will generally prefer, where available, a construction of the relevant statute which ‘minimises [its] encroachment upon fundamental principles’. In the absence of ‘express’ language displacing such principles in the relevant Act, it necessarily follows that the court will interpret the impugned provisions so as to preserve common law rights. Given a broad construction of the provision, which captures conduct that merely causes an apprehension of forceful behaviour or embarrassment, may amount to an unreasonable abrogation of such rights rights, the court is likely to read ss 19 and 20 narrowly. The preferred construction would therefore operate to regulate protests which obstruct or prevent the Casino from providing its employees with a working environment free from violence and intimidation, or physical and psychological harm. This approach ensures the ambiguous language identified is not rendered ‘inoperative or meaningless’, while preserving its compatibility with common law rights.