⁶⁴[1994] B CLC 4 45 (CA). 46 more time may be required to enact it. Statutes and judgments are fundamentally different kinds of document. While a statute or other legislative instrument provides little  or  no  context  to  help  the  reader,  a  judgment may  provide  a  great  deal  of context. A statute is a series of legal propositions without explanation as to the policy that underlies them. That policy may have been developed in a lengthy and rigorous process involving extensive consultation, but the statute invariably says nothing about it. The reader has to look elsewhere. By contrast, a judgment will generally explain the policy underlying the law. I have recently had to read a line of cases dealing with the restrictions on companies carrying on legal proceedings other than by solicitors and appearing at hearings other than by counsel. The underlying policy for the restrictive rules is articulated  by Sir Thomas Bingham MR in his judgment in Radford v Freeway Classics Ltd.⁶⁴ Knowing the rule is one thing, but knowing the reason for it gives it meaning. 92 In a perverse way, the less contextual assistance afforded by the statute makes it easier to identify the legal rules the statute contains but more difficult to understand the rules, while the greater contextual framework afforded by the classical common law judgment makes it more difficult to identify the legal rule but makes it easier to understand it. 93 When Parliament enacts a statute, it speaks with a single voice. So too does the executive  or  other  person  exercising  law-making  powers.  There  is  only  one statement of the law, not several. Multiple judgments in the New Zealand Court of Appeal, while much less frequent now, are not uncommon. Appellate courts in other jurisdictions commonly deliver multiple judgments, although I do not know whether the trend is the same.