It is 2025 when the law firm in which you work is approached by Mr Diggory.

Mr Diggory is an engineer specialising in tunnelling. He has no legal expertise.

Mr Diggory is a director of the Suburban Rail Loop Authority, that is, he is a member of the board of directors of the Authority. He was appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the previous Minister for a 4 year term. The previous Minister was an engineer by background. Mr Diggory has served one year so far as a director.

Mr Diggory informs you that there are no vacancies on the current board of directors. He tells you that he is one of three engineers with tunnelling expertise on the board. The other two were appointed before him.

Mr Diggory shows you a letter he has received from the current Minister. It reads in part:

Because there are three experts in tunnelling and no lawyers with appropriate legal expertise on the board I regret that I need to replace the most recently appointed engineer with tunnelling expertise on the board of directors with someone with appropriate legal expertise. I am accordingly proposing to recommend to the Governor in Council that you be removed from the board, at the first available meeting of the Executive Council, pursuant to s 24(2)(d) of the Suburban Rail Loop Act 2021. Out of an abundance of caution, I am giving you the opportunity to present a case against your removal before Imake any recommendation to that effect.

Mr Diggory is fairly incensed at the letter. He asks your firm to present a case to the Minister and if necessary represent him in civil litigation.

Your manager at the firm, Ms Pointy, asks you to answer this question: whether the Governor in Council could be satisfied under s 24(2)(d) of the Suburban Rail Loop Act 2021 ('the Act') (so that Mr Diggory could be removed upon a recommendation of the Minister to that effect). In the course of answering that question, your Manager asks you to give detailed consideration to the interpretation of the words 'any other ground' in s 24(2)(d). In other words, treat those words as the unit of inquiry.

In answering the question assume that, apart from s 24(2)(d), formal requirements for removing Mr Diggory have been or could be met. (This includes any natural justice requirements.)

Assume there is no evidence for s 24(2)(a), (b) or (c) of the Act to be relied on. Assume s 24(3)(a) and (b) of the Act do not apply to the circumstances you are presented with.

Please identify the different constructions for this case and explain what would be the preferred one.

Suburban Rail Loop Act 2021 (legislation.vic.gov.au)