Statutory interpretation on amended and unamended definitions required a reference for fresh merits-based examination.

A recurring question of statutory interpretation was treated as a pure question of law affecting a large number of cases, because it concerned the statutory definition in both its unamended and amended forms. The Tribunal had refused a reference on the basis that the jurisdictional High Court had already addressed the issue, but the court considered it appropriate to revisit the question comprehensively in light of subsequent amendments. The Tribunal was therefore required to make a reference so the issue could be examined on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal should be directed to make a reference to the High Court on the question proposed by the State.

Analysis: The question proposed was treated as a pure question of law having recurring effect in a large number of cases and involving interpretation of the statutory definition both in its unamended and amended form. The Tribunal had declined reference on the ground that the issue had earlier been answered by the jurisdictional High Court, but the Court found it appropriate that the question be examined comprehensively again in light of subsequent amendments, so that the matter could be answered on merits.

Conclusion: The Tribunal was required to make a reference and the applications were allowed.

---