What if 2 Acts provide separate rights of appeal from the same proceedings? In this case: one to the District Court, one to the Supreme Court. The answer, said Basten JA (at [5, 21]), is not to assume inconsistency, but instead to try and give each provision an operation consistent with its terms.
Both avenues of appeal remained open, and there was a need to ‘regulate their independent operation’8. Express words are usually needed before appeal rights are to be restricted9. Further, the principle that specifying a particular procedure impliedly negates all others did not apply10. iTip – courts are vigilant in protecting access to justice.
This case is fromEpisode 31 of interpretationNOW!