Parkes v Entwhistle

Norman Douglas Parkes was the applicant and Keith Eric Entwhistle was the respondent in this matter before the High Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the validity of proclamations made by the Executive under the Road Safety Act and other Victorian legislation, and whether these proclamations correctly reflected the intention of Parliament. The applicant argued that the Executive had wrongfully proclaimed various provisions of the Act to come into effect on specific dates.

The High Court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, it had to consider whether the Executive had acted in accordance with Parliament's intention when issuing proclamations to bring certain provisions of the Road Safety Act into force. Secondly, the Court was asked to address the interpretation of statutes drafted in "plain English," and whether such legislation should be read solely on its literal wording or also within its historical and philological context. The applicant contended that the lower court, in focusing on the "plain English" concept, had failed to consider the broader context of the statute.

The applicant's submissions highlighted that similar legislative provisions existed in other Australian states, suggesting the principles applied in this case would have national significance. The core of the argument was that even if Parliament empowered the Executive to make proclamations, the specific proclamations bringing sections 49(1)(f) and 95 of the Road Safety Act into force were invalid. This invalidity, it was argued, meant these sections were not operative, irrespective of the interpretation of the "plain English" provisions. The applicant referred to the case of *B v Medical Superintendent of Macquarie Hospital* to support the argument regarding the validity of proclamations.