Language – Elide

This term is a verb which has various meanings, the principal use of which entails the merging of two elements or concepts, in the sense of conflating the same.

The Cambridge Online Dictionary defines the term as “to join different things together as if they were the same;  to become joined in this way” and also, and saliently “to ignore a difference between things:  by eliding the distinction, you are being sloppy and weakening your argument”, “he attempts to elide the boundaries between painting and sculpture”.

In the Collins Online Dictionary the principal definition is “if you elide something, especially a distinction, you leave it out or ignore it:  these habits of thinking elide the difference between what is common and what is normal”.

Examples in jurisprudence are:

In Lewis v Australian Capital Territory (2020) 271 CLR 192, [2020] HCA 26, the court wrote (at [47]):

 A right to nominal damages, as one remedy, follows from that finding of liability. That award of nominal damages marks the fact that “there [was] an infraction of a legal right”. There is then a question as to whether any other relief should be awarded to a particular plaintiff, in their own unique situation. This, in turn, requires consideration of the nature and purpose of other forms of relief. Just as questions of liability and relief should not be elided, the varying natures and purposes of different forms of relief should not be elided or confused.

In Gramotnev v Queensland University of Technology [2015] QCA 127 the court wrote (at [174]):

This was an aspect of the appeal where the appellant’s lack of understanding of relevant laws and legal principle caused him to elide distinct legal rights and principles. Although sometimes overlooked because there is a corresponding duty of care in tort, it is uncontentious that an employer owes a contractual duty to take reasonable care for the safety of an employee. The question was settled before 1959 when Davie v New Merton Board Mills Ltd was decided. Keane JA referred to it in Wylie v The ANI Corporation Ltd as a duty “which may properly regarded as a contractual duty” and McHugh J, who was a recognised expert in this field of discourse, said in Tame v New South Wales:

… the employer’s duty of care arises from an implied term of the contract as well as from the general law of negligence … It simply implies a general duty to take reasonable care for the safety of the employee and, it might be added, for the employee’s property.