Buildings (Design and Siting) Act 1967 (ACT)

The matter under consideration was between the Commonwealth and Mr. John Doe, a resident of the Australian Capital Territory. The dispute centred around the application of the Buildings (Design and Siting) Ordinance 1964-1967 and the entitlement of Mr. Doe to certain fees and allowances under section 13A of the Ordinance. Mr. Doe argued that he was entitled to fees and allowances as per the prescribed scale for evidence given before the Committee, as per the new provisions introduced by the 1967 Ordinance. The Commonwealth, however, contested this claim, arguing that the provisions were not applicable to Mr. Doe's case.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the new provisions introduced by the 1967 Ordinance, which prescribed fees and allowances for individuals attending to give evidence before the Committee, applied retroactively to cases such as Mr. Doe's, where the proceedings were initiated prior to the enactment of the 1967 Ordinance. The court needed to determine whether the application of these provisions was retrospective or if they only applied to future cases.

The court concluded that the provisions introduced by the 1967 Ordinance were not intended to apply retrospectively. It found that the language of the Ordinance did not explicitly state that the provisions would have retrospective effect, and therefore, they should only apply to cases initiated after the commencement of the 1967 Ordinance. The court emphasised that unless there was a clear indication of retrospective application in the legislation, such provisions should not be applied to cases that arose before their enactment. Consequently, Mr. Doe was not entitled to the fees and allowances prescribed under section 13A of the Ordinance for his evidence given before the Committee.

In light of the court's decision, Mr. Doe's claim for fees and allowances under the Buildings (Design and Siting) Ordinance 1964-1967 was dismissed. The court ruled that the provisions did not apply retroactively, and therefore, Mr. Doe was not entitled to the prescribed fees and allowances for his evidence given before the Committee.