15-MAY-1991 15:
DIRECTOR OF ADM.
952 877 0803
F.54
wecision et Kaplan J.,
with which
wt
are Carrering,
to the
effer* that the purporteu celegation sy Chiet stice of his powers under sufficient sup-delegation in law of the powers of Governor contained an Article xlV."
the Governor
LO
the
section b W
not
the
Anicr
fided
the Case
learned judge's decision on The
in favour of the respondents, did not
be directly supported 2
this question,
leacing counsel
or
the respondents.
fav
:
This proJUCES the result that
was effectively that cf the
persuade tris Court that the quoue
Constitutionui
issue!
lcspondents ×70
nac Erreu CI
which ne
nau cetermined in
-ttorne; Genera..
The age,
600
nao
..15 eserve:
100
ifficulty cefore giving BAS
Josence ci any
evidence of a purportes
Ju-cele-ation!
expressed
ここ
haus Sy
jeci on,
Jele
reference
Ivoarding
atien
¿¡v power.
the otr.
March
sent
letter
ler:
:
the Parties
lawyers 117
2rtance
this Cint
in the
11
terms:
De
ч
the C11et Justice
ratten.
under
There oppear (S selegation to
frater
written JE
+
or referred 0 in zela 107
Patent
21
;,2-
peen producej ΕΠΕ Letter (S)
เ
How should the Court vie.. the absence ci Such written delegation? Can the matter dealt
simply as 2 Fatter of construction
De
Joes
uelegate
+
Conec 1.. fact."
the POWEL
nave
This court was informed by ME
meane v.C.
representing the second respondent that counsel had
taker
the opportunity of addressing the judge on this matter before ne delivered judgment. Mr. Keane also informed this court that the judge seemed to be of the view that there