Legal Research
Cases
Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wraith

Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wraith

Link copied

Case Copied 11 August 1983 21 min read

Contents

On this page

Re: ANSETT TRANSPORT INDUSTRIES (OPERATIONS) PTY. LTD. AND ANOTHER
And: KENNETH F. WRAITH AND OTHERS
No. VG131 of 1983
Administrative Law

COURT

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION
Woodward J.

CATCHWORDS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 - request for further and better particulars of reasons for decision - form of request - sufficiency of response - request in proper form but given and received under mistaken belief as to relevant legislation.

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 s. 13

Independent Air Fares Committee Act 1981 ss.17 and 24(1)

HEARING

MELBOURNE

#DATE 11:8:1983

ORDER

Subject to the provisions of s.13A of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the respondents furnish to the applicants within ten days an additional statement containing further and better particulars of

(a) findings on material questions of fact,

(b) the evidence or other material on which those

findings were based, and

(c) the reasons,

for the decision of 6 July 1983 not to revoke approval of East West Airlines (Operations) Ltd.'s discount air fare between Sydney and Brisbane via intermediate ports.

JUDGE1

This is an application, pursuant to s. 13 of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 ('the Judicial Review Act'), for declarations and an order that the respondents, members of the Independent Air Fares Committee ('IAFC'), should give a better statement of their reasons for deciding to reject a recent request by the applicants ('Ansett'). That request was, in effect, for the IAFC to revoke its approval of discount air fares to be charged by East West Airlines (Operations) Ltd. ('East West') for services between Sydney and Brisbane via intermediate ports.

It is convenient first to consider the relevant parts of the legislation under which the IAFC operates. This is the Independent Air Fares Committee Act 1981 ('the IAFC Act'). The scheme of the Act provides that the Minister may refuse use of aerodromes and other air route facilities to any passenger operator which charges fares that have not been approved under the Act.

In this case we are concerned with discount air fares. Section 17 of the Act provides

"17.(1) A passenger operator may, in accordance with sub-section (2), request the Committee to approve a discount air fare that the passenger operator proposes to charge in respect of travel over any route.

(2) A request under sub-section (1) in relation to a proposed discount air fare in respect of travel over a route shall be made by notice in writing given to the Chairman setting out -

(a) whichever of the following amounts is applicable:
(i) in a case to which sub-paragraph (ii) does not apply - the amount (expressed as a percentage of the economy air fares charged by the passenger operator over that route) of the proposed discount air fare; or

(ii) in the case of a request by a passenger operator, other than Ansett or the Commission, in respect of travel over a trunk route over which both Ansett and the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd v Wraith and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1983] FCA 187
Decision Date: 11 AUGUST 1983

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ansett Transport Industries (Operations) Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by the Director of Civil Aviation not to revoke approval of a discount air fare offered by East West Airlines (Operations) Ltd between Sydney and Brisbane via intermediate ports. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issue for the Court was whether the request for further and better particulars of the reasons for the decision was properly formulated and whether the response provided by the respondents was adequate. Specifically, the Court had to determine whether the request was made in the proper form under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 and whether the respondents' reply sufficiently addressed the request.

The Court found that while the request for further and better particulars was indeed made in the proper form, it was given and received under a mistaken belief as to the relevant legislation. The Court held that the request, although technically in the correct form, did not meet the requirements of the Act because it was based on a misunderstanding of the statutory provisions. The respondents, on the other hand, had provided a response that was not entirely adequate as it failed to fully address the request for particulars of the findings, evidence, and reasons for the decision. The Court concluded that the respondents' reply did not sufficiently meet the requirements of the Act, leading to the order that the respondents must furnish further and better particulars within ten days.

The Court ordered that the respondents must provide a supplementary statement within ten days containing further and better particulars of the findings on material questions of fact, the evidence or other material on which those findings were based, and the reasons for the decision of 6 July 1983. This was to ensure that the applicants had a comprehensive understanding of the basis for the decision, thereby facilitating a more effective judicial review process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Subject to the provisions of s.13A of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the respondents furnish to the applicants within ten days an additional statement containing further and better particulars of

(a) findings on material questions of fact,

(b) the evidence or other material on which those

findings were based, and

for the decision of 6 July 1983 not to revoke approval of East West Airlines (Operations) Ltd.'s discount air fare between Sydney and Brisbane via intermediate ports.

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.