22-APR-1991 17:16
CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS BR
852 840 1976
P.02
this;
17
►
*
the point СПАС a principal who must accept liability for the acts of his agent need not accept it for the acts of his ayent's agent; but even here there are wide exceptions. In the case of statutory powers the important question ig whether, an a true construction of the Act, it is intended that a power contezzed upon :A. may be exercised on A's authority by B.. The maxim merely inqicates that this is not normally allowable. For this purpose no distinction need be drawn between delegation and agency... Whichever ter is employed, the question of the true intent of the Act remains.. It is true. that the court will more readily approve the employment of another person to act as a mere ayent: than the wholesale delevation of the power itself 3 u.t this is due not to any technical difference between agency and deleyation nut to the different uegress of devolution which either term can cover. The vital question in most cases iş whether the statutory discretion remains in the hands of the proper authority, wilethar some other person purports to exercise it."
→
Or
$74. ne
Slates
In relation to sup-deleyation at p. 74.
"Sub-delegation
is
The general rule against sub-delegation. of statutory powers, encountereu once. already, turns upon statutory construction. If Parliament confers power under A, the evident intention that it shall be exercised by A and not by B.
But where power is conferred upon a minister, it is (as we have seen) taken for granted that his officials may exercise it in his name, since that 15 the mor...al way in which executive wusiness is done. This is as crue of legislativḤ as of auministrative powers. Many ministerial regulacions, Maue in the Kinister siyned by officials Minister
.4
though
name,
vita
valiuly without the
official scai.
at'd 0490 698 298
៦ ២ ម 12:21
22-10-166T
་***