BTR PLC v Westinghouse Brake and Signal Company (Australia) Limited [1991] FCA 945

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT ENE DIVISION

CORAM: Black CJ

PLACE: Melbourne

DATE: 5 December, 1991. XTEMPORE RE.

BLACK

This is an application to stay part of a decision of the

VG No. 376 of 1991

On appeal from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

BETWEEN:

BTR plc Firstnamed Appellant

- and -

BTR NYLEX LIMITED Secondnamed Appellant

= and =

WESTINGHOUSE BRAKE AND SIGNAL COMPANY (AUSTRALIA LIMITED

Firstnamed Respondent

= and =

IAN EDRIC PROWSE Secondnamed Respondent

and =

HAWKER DE HAVILLAND LIMITED Thirdnamed Respondent

- and - AUSTRALIAN E RITIE COMMISSION

Fourthnamed Respondent

NS FOR DGMENT

Administrative Appeals Tribunal pending an appeal to a Full

Court.

f

-2-

The matter before me today is an application in limited compass; it seeks a stay of that part of the AAT's decision as would require the appointment of a valuer as a condition of an

exemption that the AAT has ruled upon.

The manner in which I approach the application is founded upon the important circumstance that the main stay application, that is the application for a stay of the AAT's decision in its entirety, will be heard on Tuesday next, 10 December. Obviously I would not wish to prejudge the outcome of that application in any way at all, and nothing that I say now

should be taken as in any way doing so.

The considerations are finely balanced and I was initially 'inclined to give great weight to the argument that although there is the possibility of money being thrown away, there is

also the possibility of delay that could be irretrievable.

What has persuaded me, however, to grant a stay in limited terms, is the circumstance that the programme provided for by the exemption is a programme that is in terms extendable and was obviously therefore intended by the AAT to be extendable, and that the worst case would involve a loss of four, or perhaps five, working days, between now and the hearing of the