Griffiths, F. & Anor v Civil Aviation Authority & Anor [1995] FCA 342

CATCHWORDS PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - application to dismiss proceedings - no issue of principle involved. Roy Frederick Griffiths and Grif-Air Helicopters Pty. Ltd. v. Civil Aviation Authority and Peter P. Rundle QG95 of 1993 Cooper J., Brisbane, 16 May, 1995

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION No. QG95 of 1993 BETWEEN: ROY FREDERICK GRIFFITHS First Applicant AND: GRIF-AIR HELICOPTERS PTY. LTD. Second Applicant AND: CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY First Respondent AND: PETER P. RUNDLE Second Respondent JUDGE MAKING ORDER:Cooper J. WHERE MADE: Brisbane DATE OF ORDER: 16 May, 1995 MINUTES OF ORDER THE COURT ORDERS THAT :- 1. Application QG95/93 on behalf of Grif-Air Helicopters Pty. Ltd. as second respondent be dismissed. 2. Grif-Air Helicopters Pty. Ltd., pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the application and notice of motion filed 15 August, 1994 to be taxed. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION No. QG95 of 1993 BETWEEN: ROY FREDERICK GRIFFITHS First Applicant AND: GRIF-AIR HELICOPTERS PTY. LTD. Second Applicant AND: CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY First Respondent AND: PETER P. RUNDLE Second Respondent CORAM: Cooper J. PLACE: Brisbane DATE: 16 May, 1995 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT On 16 June, 1993 these proceedings were instituted by application for prohibition, mandamus and injunction against an officer of the Commonwealth. The application was brought by Roy Frederick Griffiths as first applicant, and Grif-Air Helicopters Pty. Ltd. as second applicant. The application set out in paragraphs 1 to 6 the grounds of complaint of the applicants and related to the suspension of Mr. Griffiths' Commercial Helicopter Pilot Licence, his Private Helicopter Pilot Licence, his Commercial Aeroplane Pilot Licence, his Private Aeroplane Licence, and his approval to act as Chief Pilot. The proceedings also related to the suspension of the Air Operators Certificate of Grif-Air Helicopters Pty. Ltd., the second applicant. On 20 July, 1993 further proceedings (number QG117/93) were filed by Mr. Griffiths personally. Those proceedings arose out of a notice to show cause issued on 22 June, 1993 by a Mr. Peter Phillip Rundle, the first respondent, and the Civil Aviation Authority, the second respondent. The effect of the notice was that Mr. Griffiths was required, within 28 days, to show cause why his pilots' licences should not be varied, suspended or cancelled pursuant to Regulation 269(1) of the Civil Aviation Regulations. On the same date Mr. Griffiths filed in QG95/93 and QG117/93 an affidavit in support of each application. By notice of motion filed 29 July, 1993 in each proceeding the respondents sought to have each of the proceedings dismissed summarily, or in the alternative to have parts of each of the proceedings struck out. The notices of motion filed on 29 July, 1993 were returned before Sweeney J. on 5 August, 1993. On that occasion Mr. Griffiths and the company did not proceed with the application for interlocutory relief contained on the original applications. This was because stays of the licence suspensions sought by way of interlocutory relief in the proceedings in this court had already been granted by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in the interim. Before Sweeney J., Mr. Griffiths was given leave in each application to withdraw the affidavits filed by him on 29 July, 1993. The affidavits were withdrawn from each of the court files and thereafter formed no part of the documents on the court files. On the occasion that the matter was before Sweeney J., Mr. Griffiths was not represented by counsel and he acted in person. After discussion between counsel for the respondents and Mr. Griffiths, Mr. Griffiths was given leave to withdraw proceedings QG117/93. There was discussion before Sweeney J. as to what ought to occur in relation to application QG95/93, all parties being aware that the show cause notice had been issued at that time, and that the question of variation, suspension, or cancellation was a live issue before the Civil Aviation Authority for determination. In the end result, it being anticipated that Mr. Griffiths and Grif-Air Helicopters Pty. Ltd. would, if the decision of the Civil Aviation Authority was adverse to them, apply to the AAT for relief, application QG95/93 was adjourned to a date to be fixed. It is clear on the material that the application was to remain as a vehicle to enable Mr. Griffiths to bring any further proceedings in relation to the show cause notice, if there was some difficulty with the AAT exercising jurisdiction in the matter. In this way, Mr. Griffiths and the company could avoid the payment of a further filing fee of $300.00 in the event that the further proceedings were necessary. The Civil Aviation Authority did determine the matters adversely to Mr. Griffiths and the company and proceedings were taken in the AAT, where Mr. Griffiths and the company were represented by counsel. No problem as to jurisdiction arose in the AAT. Transcript of the proceedings before the AAT was before me today and it is clear that the various applications, other than the application relating to Mr. Griffiths' personal licences, were abandoned by counsel with the effect that they stood dismissed in the AAT. The decision of the AAT, in relation to Mr. Griffiths' personal licences, was the subject of fresh proceedings filed in this court by Mr. Griffiths, being proceedings QG82/94. On 20 July, 1994 Mr. Griffiths filed in QG117/93 two documents headed "NOTICE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL MATTER UNDER SECTION 78B OF THE JUDICIARY ACT 1903". In one of those documents Mr. Griffiths is stated as the applicant and purports to give notice in relation to matters arising under the Constitution and involving its interpretation in accordance with section 78B of the Judiciary Act. He alleges in the material filed 20 July, 1994 that the Civil Aviation Authority has :- "Used the powers vested in the Authority under the Civil Aviation Act to vary, suspend or cancel the licences, certificates and approvals granted by them or their predecessors to Mr. Griffiths and his associated companies.