High Court. In assessing whether a statute which is silent on a topic was nevertheless intended by its drafter to be governed in a certain way on that topic, is it telling that the drafter had before it a different statute from another jurisdiction on the same topic and decided not to adopt it? Is there a "common law principle that, if complete relief is available in a proceeding on foot, it is prima facie vexatious and oppressive to commence a second proceeding dealing with the same controversy"? Must any Act be read as a harmonious whole?
Some of the questions to the High Court (HCA) were as follows:
Question 1: In the context of assessing whether a statute which is silent on a topic was nevertheless intended by its drafter to be governed in a certain way on that topic, is it telling that the drafter had before it a different statute from another jurisdiction on the same topic and decided not to adopt it?
Question 2: Is there a "common law principle that, if complete relief is available in a proceeding on foot, it is prima facie vexatious and oppressive to commence a second proceeding dealing with the same controversy"?
Question 3: Must any Act be read as a harmonious whole?
The HCA answered those questions as follows: