Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2009] FCA 229
CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY v CENTRAL AVIATION PTY LTD
NSD 1025 of 2008
PERRAM J
13 MARCH 2009
SYDNEY IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1025 of 2008
BETWEEN: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
Applicant
AND: CENTRAL AVIATION PTY LTD
Respondent
JUDGE: PERRAM J
DATE OF ORDER: 13 MARCH 2009
WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The respondent pay the costs of the applicant on the appeal. 2. The respondent be granted a certificate certifying that, in the opinion of the Court, it would be appropriate for the Attorney-General to authorise a payment under the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) to the respondent in respect of: (a) the costs incurred by the respondent in relation to the appeal; and (b) any costs incurred by the applicant in relation to the appeal that have been, or are required to be, paid by the respondent to the applicant in pursuance of an order of the Court. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court's website. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY NSD 1025 of 2008
BETWEEN: CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
Applicant
AND: CENTRAL AVIATION PTY LTD
Respondent
JUDGE: PERRAM J
DATE: 13 MARCH 2009
PLACE: SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 6 February 2009 the applicant's appeal to this Court was allowed: Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 49. I accepted the submission that the reasons proffered by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") were inadequate in the requisite sense. I set aside the statement of reasons issued by the Tribunal and directed it to provide reasons which were adequate. I declined the applicant's invitation to set aside the whole of the Tribunal's decision and to permit a fresh hearing of the matter before a differently constituted Tribunal. I also did not accept the applicant's submission that the decision of the Tribunal revealed additional errors of law. Specifically I rejected the applicant's submission that it was beyond the power of the Tribunal to impose certain conditions on the respondent's licence. 2 The applicant had also contended that the Tribunal had taken into account irrelevant considerations and had asked itself the wrong question. It was not possible to deal with those submissions because the reasons of the Tribunal were not sufficiently adequate to determine their correctness. 3 It will be seen, therefore, that the principal submission advanced by the applicant was accepted; that a legal argument advanced by it was rejected; and that the remaining issues could not be determined because of the inadequacy of the Tribunal's reasons. 4 The respondent submits that the appropriate order is that the applicant pay its costs of the appeal. I reject that submission. The applicant was successful even if its triumph was not total. Parts of the case were undecided because of the inability to assess the arguments in light of the quality of the reasons provided by the Tribunal. Where the appeal only took one day and where the applicant succeeded in its primary argument I do not consider there to be special circumstances warranting a departure from the ordinary position that the successful party is entitled to its costs: Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229 at 234-235 [11] per Black CJ and French J. In any event, most of the debate before the Court was concerned with the adequacy of the Tribunal's reasons which, as I have mentioned, was an issue upon which the applicant was successful. 5 In its written submissions the applicant submitted that the appropriate order was that costs should follow the event. I agree. The appropriate order is that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the appeal. 6 The inadequacy of the Tribunal's reasons was, however, disconnected from any default on the part of the respondent. Section 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) provides: Costs certificates for respondents – Federal appeals
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