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 main stay application on Tuesday next. From what I presently know of the case, it would seem that an extension of the six week period, by four or five days were -3- that necessary, would not cause prejudice to any large extent. Also, I am influenced by the fact that although it is plain that the valuation schedule will be tight, I am not satisfied that even the loss of three days or four days would make it impossible for the valuers to proceed in accordance with the original time-frame. As I have said, I think the considerations are finely balanced but on the whole, and particularly because the whole matter will be ventilated with appropriate time for consideration on Tuesday next, it would be better, in the circumstances, to delay the appointment of the valuers. On balance, I consider that that is what ought to be done and I will make orders accordingly. I certify that this and the preceding two (2) pages are a true copy of the Extempore Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Chief Justice Black. Associate: /e Decon 4/27