0

Reading Crown Proceedings Act 1950 I came across a use of the phrase "apart from this section" which I can't make much sense of:

14 Method of making Crown a party to proceedings

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act and any other Act, civil proceedings under this Act by the Crown may be instituted by—

(a) the appropriate government department in its own name if the department has power to sue apart from this section;

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act and any other Act, civil proceedings under this Act against the Crown shall be instituted against—

(a) the appropriate government department in its own name if the department may be sued apart from this section;

What is the purpose/meaning of the bold phrase in there? Would the provisions have a different meaning if that phrase was omitted?

So far my interpretation is that the cited provisions only apply if any piece of legislation other than this section provides that the government department can sue/be sued. That said, the government department would not be able to sue/be sued just by virtue of section 14 unless other statute allowed so. But the thing is: section 14 on its own does not grant any government department the ability to sue/be sued. Therefore such ability can only be granted by another piece of legislation. Why would then "apart from this section" be necessary there?

1 Answer 1

4

I take that to mean that section 14 alone should not be construed to give a department the power to sue under sub section (1), nor the ability to be sued under sub section (2). Rather, if some other law, or some other section of that law confers such a power or ability, section 14 indicates how the power should be used, that is, gives the proper procedure. But if no such other law is in effect, section 14 alone won't do.

If the law has simply said:

civil proceedings under this Act by the Crown may be instituted by (a) the appropriate government department in its own

That might have been construed to grant such powers to every "appropriate " department, which apparently was not desired.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .