Broadbent, M.R.M. v Civil Aviation Authority

[1992] FCA 501

JUDGMENT No. ...L.--. 0 1 ]p?..-

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA	)	No. QG 118 of 1991
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT	)
GENERAL DIVISION	1

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL RUSSELL MARK BROADBENT

FIRST APPLICANT

m:

MONTCHEL PTY. LTD.

SECOND APPLICANT

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY

RESPONDENT

MINUTES OF ORDERS

JUDGE MAKING ORDER:	Drummond J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 July, 1992
WHERE MADE:	Brisbane
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The Notice of Motion filed 18 June, 1992 is dismissed.

2.        The costs of today's proceedings are costs in the cause.

August, 1992.

THE COURT DIRECTS THAT:

1.        The applicants have leave to amend their application so as to include in it a challenge to the respondent's decision made 15 May, 1992, to be delivered by Wednesday, 15 July, 1992.

2.        The applicants deliver a statement of claim fully particularised in relation to both the respondent's decision made 28 March, 1991 and the respondent's decision made 15 May, 1992 by Wednesday, 29 July, 1992.

3.        The respondent deliver its defence by Wednesday, 26

4.         The matter is adjourned for further directions to Thursday, 3 September, 1992 at 9.30 a.m..

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

"; --

,/?.G.. L.. C..

I .' > )L -",

A

-

FED ) No. QG 118 of 1991

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT	)
GENERAL DIVISION	)

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL RUSSELL MARK BROADBENT

FIRST APPLICANT

m:

MONTCHEL PTY. LTD.

SECOND APPLICANT

CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY

RESPONDENT

Goram:	Drummond J
m:	1 July, 1992

Place: Brisbane

I decline to strike out the application. This court

does, in the light of the decision in Sordini v Wilcox (1983)

Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) in an appropriate	70 F.L.R. 326, have power under S. 16 of the Administrative
case (which will have to be an exceptional one) to in effect direct the decision-maker - here the Civil Aviation Authority - to grant the relief initially sought from that decision-maker. It is not possible on the material before me to form any view on the inappropriateness of the court exercising that jurisdiction at the end of the day in this

case. The matters relied on to justify the second decision made 15 May, 1992 comprise some of the matters relied on to justify the first decision made 28 March, 1991 plus at least one matter that occurred after March 1991. The applicants have now obtained leave to amend the present application to include in it a challenge to the second decision, which will mean that all matters relevant to the question of the first applicant's entitlement 'to be appointed chief pilot of the second applicant and which were relied on to justify each of the two decisions should be able to be effectively ventilated in the present proceedings.

In relation to the respondent's second point that the decision of 15 May, 1992 has in effect displaced the first decision made 28 March, 1991, I do not consider that there is any basis upon which it would be appropriate to conclude that anything done by the second applicant in relation to seeking the second decision made on 15 May, 1992 in any way prevents the applicants maintaining their opposition to the first

decision.

No other grounds were put forward to justify the striking out of the application.

I certify that this and the preceding

page is a true copy of the reasons for

judgment herein of

Justice Drummond.

Associate:

Date :  1 July, 1992