LEGAL PRINCIPLE: INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES – Canons of Interpretation – Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius – Application to Pre-Action Notice Provisions

This applies the interpretative maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius to statutory construction. Maxim meaning: “Expression of one thing excludes another”—when statute expressly mentions one thing, it excludes others not mentioned. Application here: Statute’s first part mentions: name and address of agent. Second part mentions: name and place of abode of intending plaintiff (not agent). Interpretation: Express mention of plaintiff (not agent) in second part excludes agent possibility—different language shows different requirement. First part allows agent details; second part requires plaintiff details (not agent). Effect: Only plaintiff’s name/address required—not agent’s, statute deliberately distinguished, and expressio unius applies. Directory nature: Since requirement is plaintiff’s details (substantively different from agent requirement), it’s directory—substantial compliance with plaintiff identification suffices. This serves: giving effect to statutory language differences, recognizing deliberate distinctions, and applying interpretative canons consistently. Why maxim applies: Legislature used different language in different parts—first part (agent allowed), second part (plaintiff required). This deliberate distinction: excludes what’s not mentioned (agent in second part), requires what’s mentioned (plaintiff), and shows intentional limitation. Courts applying this maxim: identify what’s expressly stated, determine what’s excluded by omission, and give effect to legislative choice. This prevents: reading into statute what’s not there, ignoring deliberate language differences, and treating different provisions identically. The principle: express statutory mention of one thing demonstrates intention to exclude others—courts must respect these distinctions.