AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION V. THE COMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND CANADIAN PACIFIC AIRLINES

ORDER

In the plaintiff's action. Judgment for the

plaintiff for $552,378.67 against the defendants. Judgment for the first defendant against the second defendant for $236,733.72 on the first defendant's claim for contribution. Judgment for the second defendant against the first defendant

for $315,644.96 on the second defendant's claim for contribution.

In the second defendant's counterclaim. Judgment

for the second defendant against the plaintirf and the firse defendant for $281,259.30. dudgnent for the plaintiff against the first defendant for $160,719.60 on the plaintiff's claim

for contribution. Judgment for the first defendant against

the plaintiff for $120,539.70 on the first defendant's claim for contribution.

Order that the first defendant do pay one-haif of the costs of the plaintiff and the second defendant of this action, excluding the costs of the second defendant of its application for inspection of the Cockpit Yoice Recorder of the

A for which separate provision has

plaintiff's aircraft VH.

been made; otherwise no order as to costs.

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND CANADIAN PACIFIC ATRLINES LIMITED

JUDGMENT MASON J.

AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL AIRLINES COMMISSION

v.

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA AND CANADIAN PACIFIC AIRLINES LIMITED

At 2136 hours, approximately, on 29th January 1971 at the Sydney Airport the plaintiff's Boeing 727 VH-TJA, taking off in a southerly direction along runway 16 in accor- dance with a clearance for immediate take-off given by the Aerodrome Controller (an officer of the first defendant in the Department of Civil Aviation, now the Department of Trans- port), struck a McDonnell-Douglas Super DC8 series 63 CF-CFQ owned. and operated by the second defendant. This aircraft was stationary on the runway 382 feet north cf taxiway India at the time of impact, having come to a halt after proceeding to backtrack in a northerly direction along the runway on the completion of its landing roll. Although no one was injured in the collision, each aircraft was extensively damaged. The plaintiff's aircraft sustained damage to the underside of its fuselage and the second defendant's aircraft lost eight feet