BTR Plc v Westinghouse Brake and Signal Company (Australia) Limited

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT
VG No. 376 of 1991

GENERAL DIVISION

On appeal from the

Administrative Appeals
Tribunal
B E T W E E N:
BTR plc

Firstnamed Appellant

- and -
BTR NYLEX LIMITED

Secondnamed Appellant

- and -

WESTINGHOUSE BRAKE AND

SIGNAL COMPANY (AUSTRALIA)
LIMITED

Firstname d Respondent

- and -
IAN EDRIC PROWSE

Secondnamed Respondent

- and -
HAWKER DE HAVILLAND LIMITED

Thirdnamed Respondent

- and -

AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES
COMMISSION

Fourthnamed Respondent

CORAM: Black CJ
PLACE: Me lbourne
DATE: 5 December, 1991.

EXTEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BLACK CJ
This is an application to stay part of a decision of the
Administrative Appeals Tribunal pending an appeal to a Full
Court.
The matter before me today is an application in limited
compass; it seeks a stay of that part of the AAT's decision as would require the appointment of a valuer as a condition of an
exemption that the AAT has ruled upon.
The manner in which I approach the application is founded upon
the important circumstance that the main stay application,
that is the application for a stay of the AAT' s decision in
its entirety, will be heard on Tuesday next, 10 December.
Obviously I would not wish to prejudge the outcome of that
application in any way a t all, and nothing that I say now
should be taken as in any way doing so.
The considerations are finely balanced and I was initially
· inclined to give great weight to the argument that although
there is the possibility of money being thrown away, there is
also the possibility of delay that could be irretrievable.
What has persuaded me, however, to grant a stay in limited
terms, is the circumstance that the programme provided for by
the exemption is a programme that is in terms extendable and
was obviously therefore intended by the AAT to be extendable, and that the worst case would involve a loss of four, or
perhaps five, working days, between now and the hearing of the
main stay application on Tue sday next.
From what I presently know of the case, it would seem that an
extension of the six week period, by four or five days were

-3-

that necessary, would not cause prejudice to any large extent. Also, I am influenced by the fact that although it is plain
that the valuation schedule will be tight, I am not satisfied
that even the loss of three days or four days would make it
impossible for the valuers to proceed in accordance with the
original time-frame.
As I have said, I think the considerations are finely balanced but on the whole, and particularly because the whole matter will be ventilated with appropriate time for consideration on
Tuesday next, it would be better, in the circumstances, to delay the appointment of the valuers. On balance, I consider
that that is what ought to be done and I will make orders
accordingly.
I certify that this and the preceding
two (2) pages are a true copy of the

Extempore Reasons for Judgment herein
of the Honourable Chfef Justice
Black.
Associate:

CaseChat Overview and Summary

BTR Plc and BTR Nylex Limited, appellants, sought a stay of a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) that required the appointment of a valuer as a condition of an exemption granted by the AAT. The respondents to the application were Westinghouse Brake and Signal Company (Australia) Limited, Ian Edric Prowse, Hawker de Havilland Limited, and the Australian Securities Commission. The Federal Court was asked to decide whether the appointment of a valuer should be stayed pending an appeal to a Full Court. The primary consideration was the balance between potential financial loss and the risk of irreparable delay.

The court had to decide whether the appointment of a valuer should be temporarily halted. This decision was crucial as it could either prevent potential financial loss or cause significant delay. The court considered the nature of the exemption program, which was intended to be extendable, and the possibility that a brief delay would not significantly prejudice the respondents. The court also took into account the tight but manageable schedule for the valuation process and the upcoming hearing of the main stay application.

The court reasoned that the considerations for and against staying the appointment of the valuer were finely balanced. However, the court was persuaded that delaying the appointment of the valuer was preferable. The court believed that a short delay would not cause significant prejudice, and the entire matter would be considered in detail during the upcoming hearing of the main stay application. The court concluded that it was better to delay the appointment of the valuer to avoid any prejudgment of the main stay application.

The court granted the application in limited terms and ordered that the appointment of the valuer be stayed. The court emphasized that this decision should not be construed as prejudging the outcome of the main stay application, which was scheduled to be heard on the following Tuesday. The court made clear that the considerations were finely balanced and that the decision was made in the specific circumstances of the case.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established