Interpretation (Amendment) Act (No 2) 1985 (ACT)

The matter before the court involved the Interpretation (Amendment) Act (No 2) 1985 (ACT), which amended the Interpretation Ordinance 1967. The nature of the dispute was the application of specific sections of the Crimes Act to the Ordinances. The parties involved were the Attorney-General and an interested party who challenged the validity of the amendment. The case was heard in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court.

The primary legal issue the court needed to decide was whether the Interpretation (Amendment) Act (No 2) 1985 was valid and properly enacted under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. The court also had to determine whether the amendment to Section 33G of the Interpretation Ordinance 1967 was within the legislative powers of the Australian Capital Territory. The court examined the legislative framework and the authority of the Governor-General to enact such amendments.

The court found that the Interpretation (Amendment) Act (No 2) 1985 was validly enacted under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. The court concluded that the amendment to Section 33G of the Interpretation Ordinance 1967 was within the legislative powers of the Australian Capital Territory. The court held that the amendment did not exceed the authority of the Governor-General and was properly authorised under the relevant legislation. The challenge to the validity of the amendment was dismissed.

The court issued a ruling that the Interpretation (Amendment) Act (No 2) 1985 was valid and that the amendment to Section 33G of the Interpretation Ordinance 1967 was within the legislative powers of the Australian Capital Territory. The court's decision affirmed the authority of the Governor-General to enact such amendments under the relevant legislation.