There is an apparent conflict between two parts of the Act here.
9.65(2) states that Orders may be revoked (but doesn't define the circumstances).
9.65(3) states that Orders are valid notwithstanding non-compliance with the Act (ie illegality).
The latter is a very strange provision, as it almost encourages a Minister to break the law to see if he can get away with it.
One can only hope that, in the event of a successful appeal, the judgment includes a direction to revoke the Orders.
No comments:
Post a Comment