Tay v Building Services Board  WASC 433
Did engineering activities involve supervising ‘building construction’ for the purposes of someone becoming a building service practitioner8. In this case, not all the provisions, regulations and forms fitted together that well. Hill J (at [83-84]) stressed that, where possible, provisions of an Act must be understood as part of ‘the coherent whole’9.
Where 2 statutes (or a statute and regulations) form a legislative scheme, the court ‘should endeavour to produce a rational, sensible, efficient and just operation …’ The judge rejected technical arguments and excluded the activities concerned. This case illustrates the obligation to look for coherence10.
This principle is from Episode 81 of interpretation NOW!
8 s 17 of the Building Services (Registration) Act 2011 (WA).
9 Mohammadi  WASCA 98 (at ), Aldi  HCA 53 (at ) cited.
10 SAS Trustee  HCA 55 (at ) for example, Episode 43 case 10.