Federal Court of Australia
JUDGMENT No. GEN ind SE/. 4
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No.NG 553 of 1997 GENERAL DIVISION )
Between: HEVI LIFT (PNG) PTY LIMITED Applicant
And: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
EINFELD J SYDNEY 5 AUGUST 1997
This matter commenced by way of an application for order of review of what was at the time a refusal by the respondent (the Authority) to process the applicant's application for an Air Operator's Certificate (AOC) pursuant to the Civil Aviation Act (the Act) to conduct aerial work operations using a Kamov 32A helicopter registered number RA31586, manufactured in _ the Russian Federation. Since the time of the application for relief against this refusal, and pursuant to a request by the Court, the Authority actually made a decision on 21 July to
refuse an AOC in respect of this aircraft (the decision).
The applicant, a Papua New Guinean company, operates helicopters
and fixed wing aircraft in Papua New Guinea, Australia and
number of countries in Asia and the Pacific for comf FEDERAL court'
OF AUSTRALIA 21 JAN 2903
LIBRARY
purposes. A Kamov is a heavy helicopter capable of carrying an external load up to 5 tonnes or 5,000 litres of water in firefighting operations. It has been extensively used in Australia for such purposes for several years. The aircraft's operations in Australia have been taking place with official approval under a series of temporary or interim six months AOCs but the decision means that no further interim certificates are to be issued. As a consequence the helicopter cannot be used in Australia and will either have to be returned to Russia or other
place from which it came or left on the ground. The result to
the applicant's business operations is obvious.
Because the decision to refuse an AOC has now been made, the application as presently filed can no longer have any relevance or application but the applicant has foreshadowed filing another application in substitution for the current one which would seek the same or similar relief in respect of the decision actually made on 21 July. What I have to say now assumes that that
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate