ACT Supreme Court Considers Interpretative Provision of Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)
Capital Property Projects (ACT) Pty Ltd v Planning and Land Authority [2006] ACTSC 122 (15 December 2006)
The ACT Supreme Court has recently considered the application of s 30(1) of the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT), which provides that, ‘In working out the meaning of a Territory law, an interpretation that is consistent with human rights is as far as possible to be preferred.’ The Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006 similarly provides, at s 32(1), that ‘So far as it is possible to do so consistently with their purpose, all statutory provisions must be interpreted in a way that is compatible with human rights.’
In Capital Property Projects (ACT) Pty Ltd v Planning and Land Authority, the ACT Supreme Court endorsed the approach adopted by the UK House of Lords in Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] AC 557 to the so-called ‘interpretative principle’ enshrined in the equivalent s 3 of the UK Human Rights Act 1998. In that case, the House of Lords held that, subject to not unduly ‘straining’ the meaning and purpose of legislation, the interpretative principle may involve the ‘reading down’ of express provisions and also the implication (or ‘reading in’) of provisions to ensure human rights compatibility. It requires that, as a matter of law, a human rights consistent interpretation be adopted whenever it is possible to do so, regardless of whether there is any ambiguity and regardless of how the provision in question may have been previously interpreted and applied. The ACT Supreme Court quoted approvingly from the decision of Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in Ghaiden where he stated (at 571):
the interpretive obligation decreed by section 3 is of an unusual and far reaching character. Section 3 may require a court to depart from the unambiguous meaning the legislation would otherwise bear.
The decision of the House of Lords in Ghaiden was also endorsed by the ACT Court of Appeal in Kingsley’s Chicken Pty Ltd v Queensland Investment Corporation and Ors [2006] ACTCA 9, [52].
If this approach is followed in Victoria, it is likely that s 32(1) of the Charter will be, in effect, the primary ‘remedy’ under the Act, with a Declaration of Inconsistent Interpretation being a ‘remedy’ of last resort.
For the full text of the decision in Capital Property Projects (ACT) Pty Ltd v Planning and Land Authority, see http://www.courts.act.gov.au/supreme/judgments/capital1.htm.

Montana Supreme Court rules constitutional right to a stable climate was violated by law blocking review of greenhouse gas impacts
On 13 March 2020, 16 young people sued the State of Montana, the Governor, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, and the Montana Department of Transportation. Held v Montana shows how powerful a right to a healthy environment can be in combatting environmental damage from climate change.
Read more
Federal Court rules against injunction to prevent animal cruelty in Victorian abattoir
The Game Meats Company of Australia attempted to stop Farm Transparency International Ltd from publishing a 14-minute video depicting alleged "extreme animal cruelty" obtained by a hidden camera.
Read more
Landmark decision ordering Shell to cut CO2 emissions from its global operations by 45% overturned by Hague Court of Appeal
On 12 November 2024, the Court of Appeal of the Hague overturned the landmark 2021 decision of the District Court of The Hague (District Court) in Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell, which had ordered Shell to cut CO2 emissions from its global operations by 45% by the end of 2030.
Read more