of the powers conferred The third ground is that the regulation "appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made". In considering whether this ground is infringed, regard should be had to the objects and intentions of the statute. Given these objects and intentions, have the powers been used in an usual or unexpected way? Makes rights and liberties dependent on administrative decisions which are not subject to review on their merits The fourth ground is that the regulation "unduly makes the rights and liberties of persons dependent on administrative decisions which are not subject to review on their merits by a judicial or other independent tribunal". The Regulations Review Committee has indicated, that if an administrative decision can affect a person's legal rights, privileges, or legitimate expectations, there should be a right of appeal to, or review by, an independent body or person. A right to judicially review a decision may not be enough as this remedy may not examine the merits or substance of the decision. Excludes the jurisdiction of the courts The fifth ground is that the regulation "excludes the jurisdictions of the courts without explicit authorisation in the enabling statute". This ground may apply in circumstances where a regulation is made that impacts on the rights or obligations of parties to litigation proceedings that have been commenced. More suited to Parliamentary enactment The sixth ground is that the regulation "contains matters more appropriate for Parliamentary