Alcock v Director-General, Territory and Municipal Services (Administrative Review)

The case involved the Director-General, Territory and Municipal Services and Alcock, with the dispute concerning the applicability of section 84 of the Legislation Act 2001 to the repealed Residential Property Provisions Act 2009 (RPP Act). The matter was before the Administrative Review Division of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The court was tasked with determining whether section 84 of the Legislation Act applied to preserve liabilities under the RPP Act after its repeal, and if the transitional provisions in the Public Unleased Land Act 2013 (PUL Act) evidenced a contrary intention to the application of section 84.

The court considered whether the transitional provisions in the PUL Act indicated a manifest contrary intention to the application of section 84 of the Legislation Act. The respondent argued that these provisions demonstrated both an intention for the PUL Act to operate in relation to past damage and a contrary intention to the application of section 84. However, the court found these arguments unconvincing, noting that section 84 is additional to any provisions in the repealing law and is not displaced by similar subject matter in the repealing legislation. The court concluded that the absence of specific transitional provisions in the PUL Act relating to section 84 indicated an intention to preserve rights and liabilities under the RPP Act.

The court set aside the decision under review and substituted it with a decision not to make a direction under section 21 of the Public Unleased Land Act 2013. The court found that section 84 of the Legislation Act applied, preserving the liability under the RPP Act, and that the transitional provisions in the PUL Act did not evidence a manifest contrary intention to this effect.