Didn't know that. For those interested here is the section:
13. The presumption that a word has the same meaning throughout the Act when used more than once in the same statute is consistent with this principle: see Bennion, Bailey and Norbury on Statutory Interpretation, 8th ed (2020) para 21.3. That presumption is based on the idea that the drafters of the statute were seeking to create a coherent statutory text. The weight to be given to the presumption depends upon the context in which the word or phrase appears in the instrument: Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22; [2012] 2 AC 471, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers PSC at para 75.
The presumption may be stronger where a word is defined in the Act. In R (Good Law Project) v Electoral Commission [2018] EWHC 2414 (Admin), Leggatt LJ stated (para 33):
“It is generally reasonable to assume that language has been used consistently by the legislature so that the same phrase when used in different places in a statute will bear the same meaning on each occasion – all the more so where the phrase has been expressly defined.”
The GLP once argued the consistent language in law actually means something in one of the cases where GLP actually won . Oooppps didn't think about the implications for gender. Once again Agent Joylon helps the gender realists.
I know we keep saying this. However lets say it again. Thanks Joylon! We would have won in the end whatever happened, but it might have taken many more years without him. It is special that this case was helped not only by JM's idiocy, but by GLP actually making good legal points back in the past.