In regard to subsection (2), surely there is an appalling tautology in this ? " The Court, on being satisfied that the failure to comply with the conditions was accidental or due to inadvertence or to some other sufficient cause, or that, on other grounds . . ." Surely " on being satisfied was due to some sufficient cause " would cover everything ?
SECTION 34.
Question proposed : " That Section 34 stand part of the Bill. "
It is a repeat of the exact words of the provisions already introduced in the 1913 Act. I am not advocating that we should not drop tautology if we come across it. I suggest we could ask the draftsman about it.
Section 34 stands part of the Bill ?
Subject to this.
Question put and agreed to.