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

[1991] FCA 945

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: