Court : Australia High Court
..... respondent's notice of contention and the third respondent's amended notice of contention concerning the validity of the by-law by reference to the provisions of the 1934 and 1999 acts relating to by-laws: (i) whether the by-law contravenes s 248(1)(a) of the 1999 act; (ii) whether the restriction imposed on the making of by-laws by s 246(2) of the 1999 act applies; (iii) whether s 667(1) 9 xvi of the 1934 act supports the by-law and whether the power there given to make by-laws should be construed narrowly; (iv) whether there is to be seen as extracted from the power given by s 667(1) 9 xvi, powers to control conduct ..... " and he correctly submitted that the proscriptions in the challenged clauses were applicable to the whole of the adelaide central business district; were not directed to any particular level of noise, time or place; and were not limited to offensive communications. ..... the submission of samuel corneloup, that s 246(1)(a) did not confer any by-law making power and should be treated as no more than a preamble or recital to the rules set out in the other sub-sections of s 246, should be rejected. ..... [307] mulholland v australian electoral commission [2004] hca 41; (2004) 220 clr 181 at 200 [40]; [2004] hca 41; hogan v hinch [2011] hca 4; (2011) 243 clr 506 at 555-556 [95]; wotton v queensland (2012) 246 clr 1 at 16 [30], 30 [78]; monis v the queen [2013] hca 4 at [342] per crennan, kiefel and bell jj. .....
Tag this Judgment!