Griffiths v Civil Aviation Authority [1998] FCA 1812

JUDGMENT No. £2 2iseel ocZieee

GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA QG 82 of 1994 QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

Between: ROY FREDERICK GRIFFITHS

Applicant And: CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY , Respondent REASONS FOR JUDGMENT EJNFELD J BRISBANE 23 MARCH 1998

This appeal is from a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal given on 31 May 1994. The case has a considerable litigious history. Following upon the decision of the Tribunal, there was an appeal to this Court which was disposed of by Kiefel J on 2 December 1994 by an order of summary dismissal on the basis that, as a bankrupt, Mr Griffiths had no standing and was not entitled to prosecute the proceedings. That decision was appealed to a Full Court of this Court which, in a decision reported at (1996) 67 FCR 301, allowed the appeal against the decision of Kiefel J by holding that the right of appeal against conditions imposed on a commercial pilot's licence was not property vesting in a trustee by reason of the provisions of

the Bankruptcy Act.

The matter has therefore come back to the Court at first instance to determine the appeal from the Tribunal's decision. The actual decision of the Tribunal, which is set out at page 2 of the

appeal papers, is that: The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.

That order reflects the last sentence of the judgment of the Tribunal which is to be found at page 53 of the appeal papers. In the penultimate paragraph of the judgment, paragraph 121 at

-2-

page 52 of the appeal papers, the Tribunal states:

In light of all our findings of fact and all of the evidence, we consider that Mr Griffiths has not indicated that he is prepared to fulfil his responsibilities and has shown that lack of preparedness consistently over the years. Having listened to the evidence and particularly to that of Mr Griffiths over an extended period, we have concluded that his lack of preparedness is based on his view that he is an excellent pilot who can fly his way out of trouble. There has been no question that he is an excellent pilot but this cannot overcome his consistent failure to comply with the law including the laws regarding maintenance, records as well as the use of appropriate equipment. The safety of others depends on maintenance and records and, in relation to certain Jlights such as those over water, the use of appropriate equipment. Although the responsibilities of a pilot are not co-extensive with those of the Chief Pilot or of an AOC or holder of a certificate of registration, we have no reason to believe that Mr Griffiths will change his general pattern of behaviour should he hold unrestricted pilot's licences but fly only helicopters belonging to others and operated by others.