If the rule of law is equated with adherence to the requirements of formal legality, as demonstrated in Entick v Carrington, the existence of a statutory authority will be deemed to be sufficient to justify governmental action. However, there are instances where the exercise of such statutory power has been seen to be incompatible with the rule of law if the nature of the power conferred is insufficiently limited. See, for instance, Lord Denning’s approach in the case of Inland Revenue Commissioners (Appellants) v Rossminster Ltd (Respondents) [1980] AC 952. This represents an example of an alternative approach adopted by some judges, namely to use the rule of law as a principle of interpretation. If this approach is followed, the rule of law takes on a more substantive quality. See also R v Somerset County Council, ex parte Fewings.