PART A
1. QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the Governor in Council may be satisfied according to section 24(2)(d) of the Suburban
Rail Loop Act of 2021 (the Act) (so that Mr Diggory could be removed upon a recommendation
of the Minister to that effect)
2. ANSWER IN BRIEF
The words "any other ground" in section 24(2)(d) of the Suburban Rail Loop Act 2021 1 could be
interpreted to mean that Mr. Diggory could be removed from the board if the Governor-in-
Council is satisfied that there are three tunneling experts on the board and no lawyers with
appropriate legal expertise. Alternately, ‘any other ground’ could be interpreted more narrowly to
mean that Mr. Diggory could only be removed if the Governor in Council is satisfied that there
are three experts in tunneling on the board, no lawyers with the necessary legal expertise, and no
vacancies on the current board of directors. The preferable interpretation would be determined by
the intent of the statute. If the intent of the statute is to guarantee that there are always three
tunneling specialists on the board, it is preferable to interpret "any other basis" broadly. If the
goal of this clause is to ensure that vacancies are filled as quickly as possible, a narrower
interpretation of "any other basis" would be desired.
3. DISCUSSION
Central Unit of Inquiry
Statutory interpretation is the fundamental unit of inquiry. In accordance with the primary unit of
inquiry, the Suburban Rail Loop Act 2021 (Vic) (the 2021 Act) is examinable.
The expectation inn this is to obtain, examine, and use as appropriate the following extrinsic
parliamentary materials:
• the Explanatory Memorandum to the Suburban Rail Loop Bill 2021
• the Statement of Compatibility for the Suburban Rail Loop Bill 2021
• the speech made to a House of Parliament by a Minister on the occasion of that Minister
moving a motion that the Suburban Rail Loop Bill 2021 be read a second time in that House.
Opposing constructions of unit of inquiry and applications to facts
There are two conceivable interpretations for the phrase "any other basis" in subsection (d) of
section 24(2) of the Suburban Rail Loop Act of 2021.
1 Jacinta Allan, Suburban Rail Loop Bill 2021.
1. The first stipulation is that Mr. Diggory might be removed from the board if the
Governor-in-Council is satisfied that there are three tunneling specialists and no attorneys
with the necessary legal competence on the board.
2. Mr. Diggory could only be removed if the Governor-in-Council is satisfied that there are
three tunneling specialists on the board, no attorneys with relevant legal experience, and
no vacancies on the present board of directors.
Arguments
It may be argued that the usage of the term "any" in the provision suggests that the
legislators intended for a wide variety of reasons to exist for removing a director. This
would imply that the term ‘basis’ should be read widely, and that Mr. Diggory’s dismissal
in the current instance might be judged to have been justified.
It may be claimed that the term "other" in the provision suggests that the legislators
intended for just a limited number of reasons to exist for removing a director. This would
imply that the term ‘basis’ 2 should be defined narrowly, and that Mr. Diggory’s dismissal
in the current instance could not be judged to have been justified.
It might be claimed that the legislative history of the provision suggests the legislature
did not intend for there to be a list of precise reasons for removing a director 3 . This would
imply that the term ‘basis’ should be read widely, and that Mr. Diggory’s dismissal in the
current instance might be judged to have been justified.
It might be claimed that the section’s legislative history suggests that the legislature
intended for there to be a defined list of reasons for removing a director. This would
imply that the term ‘basis’ should be defined narrowly, and that Mr. Diggory’s dismissal
in the current instance could not be judged to have been justified.
In the end, it will be up to the court to evaluate the legislative history of the clause and
conclude whether Mr. Diggory’s dismissal in this instance was justified.
Preferred Construction and Brief Reasons
The preferable construction would be determined by this provision’s intent. If the intent
of this rule is to guarantee that there are always three tunneling specialists on the board, it
would be preferable to interpret "any other basis" broadly. If the goal of this rule is to
ensure that vacancies are filled as quickly as feasible, then a narrower interpretation of
"any other basis" 4 is desirable.
2 Sallyanne Everett, Chris Wiseman and Annika Mcinerney, ‘How Victoria’s Suburban Rail Loop Act Provides for
Easier Assembly of Underground Land under the MTPF Act – Knowledge – Clayton Utz’, www.claytonutz.com
(2022) <https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2022/march/how-victorias-suburban-rail-loop-act-provides-for-
easier-assembly-of-underground-land-under-the-mtpf-act>.
3 Victoria’s Big Build, ‘Victoria’s Big Build – Suburban Rail Loop’, Vic.gov.au (2003)
<https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/suburban-rail-loop>.
4 Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, ‘Suburban Rail Loop – Infrastructure Pipeline’, infrastructurepipeline.org
(2020) <https://infrastructurepipeline.org/project/suburban-rail-loop>.
In interpreting legislative provisions, courts would ordinarily give regard to Parliament’s
meaning as reflected in the statute’s text. In order to determine Parliament’s intent, courts
will evaluate the objective of the legislation and the surrounding context of the relevant
provision. If the intent of section 24(2)(d) is to guarantee that there are always three
tunneling specialists on the board, then a broader interpretation of "any other basis" is
desirable.
This building would fulfill the aim of the law to guarantee that there are always three
tunneling specialists on the board. If the goal of this rule is to ensure that vacancies are
filled as quickly as feasible, then a narrower interpretation of "any other basis" is
desirable. This approach would give effect to the aim of the legislature to fill vacancies as
quickly as practicable.
PART B (1)
1. Question Presented
Whether the office of the Director of the Authority has become vacant in accordance with
section 24 (1) (a) of the Suburban Rail Loop Act of 2021 Act (the Act) 5 for failure to attend three
consecutive board meetings without seeking board’s approval.
2. Answer in Brief
Yes, the office which Jack Crowne had been appointed becomes ‘vacant’.
The Act provides that the office becomes vacant if the director fails to attend three consecutive
meetings of the board without approval.
From the facts presented by Mr. Jack Crowne, he is aware that the board meetings are held
monthly, on every first Monday of the month. It has been noted by the Board that he missed
September 2026 and October 2026 meetings, as well as the one held on the 9 th November without
the board’s approval.
3. Discussion
3.1 Central unit of inquiry
In accordance with the primary unit of inquiry, the Suburban Rail Loop Act 2021 Act is
examinable. We shall also use as appropriate the, following extrinsic parliamentary materials:
1. the Explanatory Memorandum to the Suburban Rail Loop Bill 2021
2. the Statement of Compatibility for the Suburban Rail Loop Bill 2021 6
3. the speech made to a House of Parliament by a Minister on the occasion of that Minister
moving a motion that the Suburban Rail Loop Bill 2021 be read a second time in that
House.
3.2 Preferred Construction of unit of inquiry and applications to facts
There is only one interpretation for the phrase "meetings of the board" in subsection (a) of
section 24 (1) of the Suburban Rail Loop Act of 2021.
The most preferable interpretation here would be determined by the literal interpretation 7 of the
5 Suburban Rail Loop Act 2021
6 Statement of Compatibility for the Suburban Rail Loop Bill 2021.
7 Vogenauer, S., 2012. Statutory interpretation. In Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law, Second Edition. Edward
Elgar Publishing.
statute. According to this rule, the words used in this text are to be interpreted in their natural or
ordinary meaning. In applying this to the facts, ‘meetings of the board’ could be interpreted to
mean as is in their ordinary or natural meaning, which is every 1 st Monday of every month.
Mr. Jack Crowne could therefore be removed since he has failed to attend three consecutive
meetings, prior to, and as well as the November 9 th Meeting of the board without approval. The
preferable interpretation would be determined by the literal meaning of the statute.
PART B (2)
1. Question Presented
Whether the office of the Director of the Authority, which is held by Mr. Crowne, has become
vacant in accordance with the amendment to section the Suburban Rail Loop Act of 2021 Act 8 by
Justice Legislation Act 2026?
2. Answer in Brief
Yes, the office of director to which Jack had been appointed would still become ‘vacant’.
Section 24 (1) (a) of the Suburban Rail Loop Act of 2021 Act as Amended by Justice Legislation
Act 2026 provides that the office of a director of the Authority becomes vacant if the director,
without the approval of the board, fails to attend two consecutive meetings of the board.
The facts are that the board of directors always meets monthly. Mr. Crowe has missed three
board meetings, September, October, and November meetings without any approval of the board.
3. Discussion
3.1 Central unit of inquiry
Statutory interpretation is the fundamental unit of inquiry. In accordance with the primary unit of
inquiry;
1. the Suburban Rail Loop Act 2021 (Vic) (the 2021 Act); as well as
2. the Justice Legislation Act 2026.
3.2 Opposing constructions of unit of inquiry and applications to facts
Preferred construction and brief reasons
The preferred construction is Retrospective application of the law 9 . This would be preferred by a
court if the matter came before it. As of the 16 th of November 2026, the applicable law would be
Justice Legislation Act.
The new law provides that the office of a director of the Authority becomes vacant if the director
fails to attend two consecutive meetings of the board without approval.
Mr. Crowe failed to attend the meetings in September, October, and November 2026. Up until
the 15 th of November 2026, the applicable law would still be the Suburban Rail Loop Act 2021
since his failure to attend the meetings was when the old law in effect.
8 Suburban Rail Loop Act 2021
9 Kirby, M., 2011. Statutory interpretation: The meaning of meaning. Melb. UL Rev., 35, p.113.
Arguments
1. The law that was in effect at the time when Mr. Crowne missed the meetings provided
that the office becomes vacant if the director fails to attend three consecutive meetings of
the board without approval.
2. The new law provides that the office becomes vacant if the director fails to attend two
consecutive meetings of the board without approval. However, this would be applicable
on the effective as of that is the 16 th of November 2026.
3. The new law is only applicable retrospectively.
Bibliography
Allan, Jacinta, Suburban Rail Loop Bill 2021
Everett, Sallyanne, Chris Wiseman and Annika Mcinerney, ‘How Victoria’s Suburban Rail Loop
Act Provides for Easier Assembly of Underground Land under the MTPF Act – Knowledge –
Clayton Utz’, www.claytonutz.com (2022)
<https://www.claytonutz.com/knowledge/2022/march/how-victorias-suburban-rail-loop-act-
provides-for-easier-assembly-of-underground-land-under-the-mtpf-act>
Infrastructure Partnerships Australia, ‘Suburban Rail Loop – Infrastructure Pipeline’,
infrastructurepipeline.org (2020) <https://infrastructurepipeline.org/project/suburban-rail-loop>
Kirby, M., 2011. Statutory interpretation: The meaning of meaning. Melb. UL Rev., 35, p.113.
LII / Legal Information Institute. 2022. Statutory Construction. [online] Available at:
<https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_construction#:~:text=Overview,their%20usual%20a
nd%20ordinary%20meanings.> [Accessed 3 June 2022].
Legislation.vic.gov.au. 2022. Suburban Rail Loop Bill 2021. [online] Available at:
<https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/bills/suburban-rail-loop-bill-2021> [Accessed 3 June 2022].
Rogan, E.P., 2012. The Melbourne city underground rail loop-a case study in capital non-
programming. Australian Planner, 49(1), pp.20-26.
R J McKay (ed), The Public Acts of New South Wales 1824–1957 (Law Book, 1958) vols 1–15.
For the Victorian equivalent,
see The Victorian Statutes: The General Public Acts of Victoria (Government Printer, 1958) vols
1–8 and the accompanying annotations in Jean Malor
(ed), The Victorian Statutes: The General Public Acts of Victoria (Law Book, 1960) vol 9.
Victoria’s Big Build, ‘Victoria’s Big Build – Suburban Rail Loop’, Vic.gov.au (2003)
<https://bigbuild.vic.gov.au/projects/suburban-rail-loop>
Vogenauer, S., 2012. Statutory interpretation. In Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law,
Second Edition. Edward Elgar Publishing.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )