Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (No 2) [2010] FCA 404 Citation: Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (No 2) [2010] FCA 404
Parties: POLAR AVIATION PTY LTD and CLARK ANDREW BUTSON v CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY, TERRENCE FARQUHARSON, GARRY PRESNEILL, ROBERT COLLINS, JIM MARCOLIN, PETER JOHN and ALAN COOK
File number: VID 677 of 2009
Judge: KENNY J
Date of judgment: 29 April 2010
Catchwords: LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – Limitation Act 1935 (WA) s 47A – Whether appropriate to grant leave to file proposed proceeding under s 47A(3) – Delay of nearly three years between applicants' solicitor's realization that applicants had potential claim against respondents and filing of application seeking leave not occasioned by mistake or reasonable cause where delay attributed to solicitor's unawareness of s 47A and its potential application – Solicitor's ignorance of statute's existence not reasonable cause or "mistake" in the relevant sense – Existence of pre-application discovery proceeding insufficient explanation for delay under the circumstances – Absence of material prejudice to potential respondents not established – Weakness of proposed causes of action weighed in favour of denying leave – Leave not appropriate PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Declaratory relief – Declaratory relief inappropriate in the circumstances of the case
Cases cited: Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2010] FCA 367Smith v Australian National Line Ltd (1998) 159 ALR 431 British American Tobacco Australia Ltd v Western Australia (2003) 217 CLR 30 Hamilton v Merck & Co Inc (2006) 66 NSWLR 48 John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503 Posner v Richards [1986] WAR 1 Matheson v Commissioner of Main Roads (2001) 25 WAR 269 Baker v Shire of Albany (1994) 14 WAR 46 Pilbara Iron Ltd v Bonotto (1994) 11 WAR 348 Repacholi Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2009) 263 ALR 93 Perry v City of Armadale [2004] WASC 167 Hughes v Minister for Health [1999] WASCA 131 Quinlivan v Portland Harbour Trust [1963] VR 25 Murray v Baxter (1914) 18 CLR 623 Stevens v Motor Vehicle Insurance Trust [1978] WAR 232 Bingham v England (1996) 17 WAR 226 Victorian Railways Commissioners v Casaccio [1961] VR 157 Sutherland Shire Council v Heyman (1985) 157 CLR 424 Graham Barclay Oysters Pty Ltd v Ryan (2002) 211 CLR 540 Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 Pharam-a-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd v Australia (No 3) [2010] FCA 361 Australian Wool Innovation Ltd v Newkirk [2005] FCA 290 Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2008] FCA 1623 Ducker v Western Australia [2006] WASCA 93 Dodoro v Knighting (2004) 10 VR 277 Bond v Sulan (1990) 26 FCR 580 John Robertson & Co Ltd v Ferguson Transformers Pty Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 65 Hamilton v Merck & Co Inc (2006) 66 NSWLR 48
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