Ejusdem generisGenusCourt of Appeal (England)

Colquhoun v Brooks

(1888) 21 Queen's Bench Division 5218881 min read
The case in brief30-second read
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"
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.
Principle
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.
Cite this

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

  1. 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.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • 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."

Cite this

Citation

Colquhoun v. Brooks (1888) 21 Queen's Bench Division 52

Reported: (1888) 21 QBD 52. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.