Ejusdem generis:

Ejusdem Generis means "of the same kind and nature”.

The ejusdem generis rule literally means of the same kind. It applies where specific words are followed by general words and means that the general words are limited to things of the same kind.

In Powell v Kempton Park Race Course a ring at a race course was held not to fall within the terms house, office, room or other place as these words were interpreted as an indoor place. In Gregory v Fearn, it was found that no tradesman, artificer, workman, labourer or other person whatsoever shall work on a Sunday, did not apply to estate agents.

The ejusdem generis rule is explained in Halsbury's Laws of England thus:-

'"As a rule, where in a statute there are general words following particular and specific words, the general words must be confined to things of the same kind as those specified, although this, as a rule of construction;, must be applied with caution, and subject to the primary rule that statutes are to be construed in accordance with the intention of Parliament.”

For the ejusdem rule to apply, the specific words must constitute a category , class or genus; if they do constitute such a category, class or genus, then only things which belong to that category , class or genus fall within the general words "

There are five conditions that have been identified:

(1) The statute contains an enumeration by specific words;

(2) The members of the enumeration suggest a class;

(3) The class is not exhausted by the enumeration;

(4) A general reference supplementing the enumeration, usually following it; and

(5) There is not clearly manifested an intent that the general term be given a broader meaning than the doctrine requires.

Examples:

If a law refers to automobiles, trucks, tractors, motorcycles and other motor-powered vehicles, "vehicles" would not include airplanes, since the list was of land-based transportation. The term Ejusdem Generis in other words means words of a similar class.

An Act stated 'Dog, cats, fishes and other animals'. The specific words are Dogs, cats, and fishes then the generic words/terms are 'other animals'. To know what the Act may mean by 'other animals' the judge would look at the similarities between 'dogs, cats and fishes' so what are the similarities? Well they are all domestic pets.  So the judge could say, when the act stated 'other animals' it meant other animals of the same kind that are domestic pets.  
Betting Act 1853 listed in a section 'house, office, room or other places for betting'. The court decided these were all in door places and because the racecourse was outdoor, it wasn't of the same kind to apply. Therefore no offence was committed.

Noscitur a Sociis

The noscitur a sociis rule literally means a word is known by the company it keeps. Under this rule words must be read in context.

In Bourne v Norwich Crematorium it was noted “words derive colour from those which surround them” In Muir v Keay the defendant kept cafe open at night without a licence. A licence is required if a premises is open for public refreshment, resort and entertainment. It was held entertainment applied to drinking coffee late at night in the context of the Act.

Noscitur a Sociis literally means “It is known from its associates”. The rule of language is used by the courts to help interpret legislation. Under the doctrine of "noscitur a sociis" the questionable meaning of a word or doubtful words can be derived from its association with other words within the context of the phrase. This means that words in a list within a statute have meanings that are related to each other.

In Foster v Diphwys Casson((1887) 18 QBD 428), the case involved a statute which stated that explosives taken into a mine must be in a "case or canister". Here the defendant used a cloth bag. The courts had to consider whether a cloth bag was within the definition. Under noscitur a sociis, it was held that the bag could not have been within the statutory definition, because parliament's intention in using ‘case or container’ was referring to something of the same strength as a canister.
Case: Inland Revenue Commissions v Frere

In statue it was stated 'interests, annuities and other annual interest'. So luckily this statute stated 'annual' and therefore told the judge 'other annual interest' only meant other annual interest so weekly or monthly interest did not apply. If it said 'other interests' without the annual in it, then he would have had to look at other parks of the statute if he used Nosuitur to interpret a phrase. 

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

The expressio unius est exclusion alterius literally means the mention of one thing excludes the other. It applies where there is a list of words which is not followed by general words and means the Act will only apply to the items in the list.

In Sedgley Inhabitants it was held the use of the words lands, houses and coalmine  excluded other types of mine.

The Expression literally means “the express mention of one thing excludes all others”. Where one or more things are specifically included in some list and others have been excluded it automatically means that all others have been excluded. However, sometimes a list in a statute is illustrative, not exclusionary. This is usually indicated by a word such as "includes" or “such as”. Thus a statute granting certain rights to "police, fire, and sanitation employees" would be interpreted to exclude other public employees not enumerated from the legislation.

This is based on presumed legislative intent and where for some reason this intent cannot be reasonably inferred the court is free to draw a different conclusion. The maxim has wide application and has been used by courts to interpret constitutions, treaties, wills, and contracts as well as statutes.

Nevertheless, Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius does have its limitations. Courts have held that the maxim should be disregarded where an expanded interpretation of a statute will lead to beneficial results or will serve the purpose for which the statute was enacted. The general meaning of “Expression of one thing is the exclusion of another” is also known as The Negative Implication Rule. This rule assumes that the legislature intentionally specified one set of criteria as opposed to the other. Therefore, if the issue to be decided addresses an item not specifically named in the statute, it must be assumed the statute does not apply.

INCLUSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

a rule of interpretation that states that 'including one excludes another'. The statement 'no dogs allowed' under thisrule would mean that panthers were allowed.