Amendments of the Motor Omnibus Regulations (ACT)

The matter before the court was an appeal by the respondent, Allen Fairhall, against the decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory that the respondent's regulations amending the Motor Omnibus Regulations were invalid and of no effect. The respondent, who was the Minister of State for the Interior, made the regulations under the Motor Traffic Ordinance 1936-1956. The appellants, who were residents of the Australian Capital Territory, challenged the validity of the regulations on the grounds that they were beyond the power of the respondent to make and were inconsistent with the Motor Traffic Ordinance 1936-1956. The court was required to determine whether the respondent had the power to make the regulations and whether the regulations were consistent with the Motor Traffic Ordinance 1936-1956.

The court held that the respondent had the power to make the regulations as they were within the scope of the Motor Traffic Ordinance 1936-1956. The court also held that the regulations were consistent with the Motor Traffic Ordinance 1936-1956 as they did not conflict with any of the provisions of the Ordinance. The court further held that the regulations were not beyond the power of the respondent to make as they were necessary for the regulation of motor traffic in the Australian Capital Territory. The court held that the respondent's decision to make the regulations was not unreasonable or unlawful.

The court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The court held that the respondent's regulations amending the Motor Omnibus Regulations were valid and of effect. The court further held that the respondent's decision to make the regulations was not beyond his power and was not inconsistent with the Motor Traffic Ordinance 1936-1956. The court dismissed the appellants' challenge to the validity of the regulations.