TNAG-0870-FCO40-1080-Air-services-between-Hong-Kong-and-the-UK-1979 — Page 37

- 4.

also to by-pass the general objectives

section 4(3)

confers large powers in respect of international

relations". See also per Roskill L.J. at p.256E-G

and Lawton L.J. at 268F and 269B.

7.

It is also clear that the "functions of

the Authority (which include its "powers and duties"

see Section 64(1) of the Act) include under Part II of

the Act the power to grant or refuse applications for

see Section 22(1).

licences:

8.

We also consider that the Secretary of State

may, when acting under Section 4(3)(b), direct that the

Authority ignore one or all of the objectives set out

in Section 3 of the Act (see the passages in the Laker

Airways case ahove referred to) or disregard Guidance

published pursuant to s.3(2) of the Act. In so doing

he would in the words of the sub-section be requiring

it to "refrain from doing a particular thing" (namely

furthering the objective(s) or following the Guidance

concerned).

In either of the above cases conflicting

requirements of the Act (and in particular those of

the objectives) would be overridden.

9.

The decision in the Laker Airways case does

Indeed the

not militate against such a conclusion.

reverse is true. In that case the Secretary of State

did not purport to give directions under Section 4(3)

whereby conflicting requirements would have been avoided.

He purported to give guidance under Section 3(2) and (3).