Ansett Transport Industries (Operation) Ltd [v Taylor, R.M. 1987] FCA 173 - [1987] FCA 173

Re: ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES (OPERATIONS) LIMITED
And: RAE MARTIN TAYLOR (who is sued in his capacity as Secretaty of the
Department of State for Aviation)
No. VG 27 of 1987 Administrative Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Lockhart J.

CATCHWORDS

Administrative Law - Two Airlines Agreement - reasons for decision of Secretary of Department of Aviation - sufficiency thereof - giving further and better particulars.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977: s. 13.

Airlines Agreement Act 1981: Schedule.

HEARING

SYDNEY

#DATE 10:4:1987

Counsel and solicitors for Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Limited. J.D. Merralls Q.C. with J.G. Santamaria instructed by Arthur Robinson & Hedderwicks

Counsel and solicitors for the Secretary of the Department of State for Aviation. D. Graham Q.C. with J.E. Middleton instructed by Australian Government Solicitor

ORDER

The application be dismissed.

The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with under Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

JUDGE1

On 31 October 1986 the respondent, Rae Martin Taylor, Secretary of the Department of Aviation ("the Secretary"), decided that he was not satisfied that the services operated by East-West (Operations) Limited ("East-West") between Sydney/Yulara/Perth were not predominantly for use for the purpose of carriage of passengers over separate prescribed routes. The decision was made pursuant to clause 6(1)(c) of what is generally known as the Two Airlines Agreement.

The Two Airlines Agreement is dated 28 May 1981 and its parties are the Commonwealth of Australia, the Australian National Airlines Commission ("Australian Airlines") and Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Limited ("Ansett"). The agreement is a schedule to the Airlines Agreement Act 1981 and it was approved by s. 5 of that Act.
The relevant parts of clause 6 of the agreement are as follows:

"6.(1)(a) The parties shall take all reasonable action within their powers to ensure that the Commission and the Company are the only two operators which provide scheduled domestic passenger air services over trunk routes within Australia.

(b) Subject to paragraph (c) of this sub-clause nothing in sub-clause (1)(a) shall prevent other operators from providing scheduled passenger air services over a prescribed route or successive prescribed routes.

(c) Where any successive prescribed routes have the effect of linking two trunk route centres that are for the time being trunk route centres for the purposes of sub-clause (1)(e), sub-clause(1)(b) applies unless the Secretary is satisfied that such scheduled passenger air services are not predominantly for use for the purpose of the carriage of passengers over separate prescribed routes and are to a significant extent used or to be used for the purpose of carriage of passengers between two centres that are for the time being trunk route centres for the purposes of sub-clause

(1)(e)."

The Secretary's decision followed an examination by him of East-West's services over various prescribed routes with the intention of forming a view as to the status of those routes for the purposes of clause 6(1)(c) of the Two Airlines Agreement.…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ansett Transport Industries (Operation) Ltd [v Taylor, R.M....

Details

AGLC: Ansett Transport Industries (Operation) Ltd [v Taylor, R.M. 1987] FCA 173 [1987] FCA 173
Case: [1987] FCA 173
Decision Date: 10 APRIL 1987

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Ltd, the applicant, versus R.M. Taylor, the respondent, the Federal Court of Australia was presented with a dispute concerning the adequacy of reasons provided by the Secretary of the Department of Aviation for a decision made under the Two Airlines Agreement. This decision had implications for the operations and regulatory compliance of Ansett Transport Industries.

The legal issues before the court included whether the reasons provided by the Secretary were sufficient to justify the decision made and whether the applicant was entitled to further and better particulars regarding the decision. The court needed to determine if the reasons provided were adequate and whether the applicant had a right to more detailed information.

The court examined the statutory framework governing the decision-making process and found that the reasons provided by the Secretary were sufficient to meet the requirements of the legislation. The court concluded that the reasons were adequate as they met the statutory criteria and provided a rational basis for the decision. Therefore, the court dismissed the application and ordered the applicant to pay the respondent's costs associated with the application. This outcome affirmed the administrative process and the sufficiency of the reasons given by the Secretary.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application be dismissed.

The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.

NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with under Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.