Broadbent v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2000] FCA 342

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Broadbent v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2000] FCA 342

MICHAEL RUSSELL MARK BROADBENT v CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY Q 301 of 1999 DRUMMOND J 20 MARCH 2000 BRISBANE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY Q 301 OF 1999

BETWEEN: MICHAEL RUSSELL MARK BROADBENT

APPLICANT

AND: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: DRUMMOND J

DATE OF ORDER: 20 MARCH 2000

WHERE MADE: BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.

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 Q 301 OF 1999

BETWEEN: MICHAEL RUSSELL MARK BROADBENT

APPLICANT

AND: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY

RESPONDENT

JUDGE: DRUMMOND J

DATE: 20 MARCH 2000

PLACE: BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1 This is an application for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of Cooper J made on 23 December 1999 refusing to stay a decision of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority ("CASA") to cancel Dr Broadbent's pilot licences. The CASA decision was made in March 1996. Dr Broadbent promptly appealed it to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("AAT") and equally promptly got an order from the AAT staying the CASA cancellation decision. It was not until four years later on 20 December 1999 that the AAT gave its decision on Dr Broadbent's challenge to the CASA cancellation decisions, by which the AAT upheld those cancellations. 2 CASA did not appeal the stay ordered by the AAT in March 1996 with the result that Dr Broadbent continued to fly for four years after his licence was ordered to be cancelled. During this period he performed flight duties for his company, Pacific Air Freighters, particularly in respect of a DC4 aircraft it operated. Immediately following the AAT decision of 20 December 1999, an ongoing dispute between Pacific Air Freighters and CASA over Pacific Air Freighters' entitlement to renewal of its Air Operator's Certificate ("AOC") was resolved, when CASA refused to renew the AOC in reliance on, among other things, the loss to Pacific Air Freighters of Dr Broadbent as a qualified pilot able to perform flight duties for it, including check pilot duties with respect to the chief pilot of the DC4. 3 Cooper J refused to further stay the CASA cancellation decisions of March 1996 pending the hearing of the appeal which Dr Broadbent promptly instituted in this Court against the AAT decision of 20 December 1999. His Honour had power to grant such a stay under s 44A(2)(b) the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth). 4 His Honour refused the stay essentially on two grounds. Firstly, his Honour took the view that refusal of the stay would not render Dr Broadbent's appeal to this Court nugatory if the appeal was ultimately successful because what was involved were cancellation decisions. "If Dr Broadbent wins," so his Honour pointed out, "he will get his licences back". His Honour contrasted the position with decisions that are sometimes made and challenged which involve the suspension, for a time, of a licence and how it is always likely that an appeal against a suspension of a licence running only for a relatively short period of time can be rendered nugatory unless a stay is ordered because the licence may have expired before the challenge to the suspension can be determined. 5 Secondly, his Honour referred to the impact cancellation of Dr Broadbent's licences would have upon Pacific Air Freighters, but considered that that was not a sufficient justification to warrant the grant of the stay sought by Dr Broadbent. His Honour explained this aspect of his reasoning in [9] of his ex tempore reasons for judgment: