In the course of a trial various arguments are put to the judge as to the exact meaning of a particular section of a relevant statute. When deciding the case, the judge first looks at the natural ordinary meaning of the words used. However such an interpretation of those words results in an absurd meaning being given to the section. The judge therefore, in coming to his decision, interprets the words in a different way which does not result in an absurd meaning.
What method of statutory interpretation has the judge used?