Quote:
As I read it, it's saying "there is (or may be) another Part or Subpart dealing with the kind of authorisation in question, so be aware the requirements in this subpart are not the only ones."
Exactly, no ambiguity
Blackhand said: So, why doesn't it say that?
"Plain English" is the instruction given to Parliamentary Counsel and it ought apply to whomever is drafting this stuff.
I'm a lawyer and I had to scratch my head to work out what the hell the author was saying. It shouldn't take a precedent in the High Court to interpret something that should be relatively straight forward.
The definition given to particular words, such as "terrain" should be dealt with in a definitions section if the ordinary common meaning isn't deemed sufficient although, God help us, it ought be clear enough.
kaz
kaz
Last edited by kaz3g; 20th Jul 2012 at 01:52.