Cape York Airlines and Anor and Civil Aviation Safety Authority

[2004] AATA 832

Administrative

Appeals

Tribunal

 

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2004] AATA 832

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL      )

)          No Q2004/477

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
Re		CAPE YORK AIRLINES

First Applicant

ARTHUR WILLIAMS

Second Applicant

And  CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal  Senior Member McCabe

Date 6 August 2004

Place Brisbane

Decision The Tribunal decides to extend the stay.  The stay will now expire at midnight on 26 August 2004.  If a new chief pilot is approved before that date, the stay will terminate on the date of that approval.

..................[Sgd]......................

SENIOR MEMBER

CATCHWORDS

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – stay – whether stay should be extended

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, s 41(2)

REASONS FOR DECISION

6 August 2004 Senior Member McCabe    

1.      Cape York Airlines Pty Ltd (the airline) and Arthur Williams are the applicants in these proceedings. Mr Williams is the chief pilot of the airline. All airlines are required to have a chief pilot approved by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). CASA cancelled Mr Williams’s approval to act as chief pilot several weeks before the approval was due expire in the ordinary course on 30 June 2004. A brief extension of the approval was given to 7 July 2004 but CASA said it would not entertain any further applications for the issue of a fresh approval.

2. The applicants asked the Tribunal to review the decision. I was asked to intervene and exercise the discretion available under s 41(2) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 to stay the decision until the matter could be heard. I was told the airline would be in serious financial trouble very quickly if it were unable to carry on its usual range of operations. I was also told the safety concerns were being addressed and were in any event not of such a character as to warrant immediate concern.

3.      I agreed to stay the decision not to renew Mr Williams’s approval to act chief pilot for 30 days. The stay was intended to allow the airline to identify and seek the approval of a new chief pilot so it could carry on its operations and preserve its position pending the hearing of its claim. My reasons are set out in the course of my decision Re Cape York Airlines & Anor and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2004] AATA 727 (8 July 2004). The stay will be lifted at midnight tonight in the absence of further orders.

4.      The applicants have asked the Tribunal to extend the stay, as they are running out of time to complete the process of appointing a new chief pilot. They have a candidate for the job who is currently being reviewed by CASA and undertaking a familiarisation process. The applicants were optimistic that he might be approved shortly. CASA did not consent to an extension, but did not oppose it either.

5.      The applicants filed two affidavits in support of their application: that of Peter Wollerman, the applicants’ solicitor, and an affidavit of Arthur Williams. The applicants also expressly relied on the material in support of their original stay application. CASA did not file any new material.

6.      I note CASA has not expressed any fresh concerns about safety issues. Mr Williams’s affidavit confirms that the airline has been operating without incident since the date the stay was granted. Mr Langmead, SC, for the applicants, suggested the applicants were working effectively with CASA to deal with the issues that have already been identified.

7. The stay power is given to the Tribunal in s 41(2) so it might preserve the status quo where that is necessary to ensure the effectiveness of a hearing. I was satisfied on 8 July 2004 that the circumstances justified the exercise of the discretion at that point. Having regard to the reasoning in my earlier decision and the additional material, I think it is appropriate to extend the stay so that it expires at midnight on 26 August 2004. If a new chief pilot is approved before that date, the stay will terminate on the date of that approval.

I certify that the 7 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of  Senior Member McCabe.

Signed:         [Sgd]
  Associate: Thomas Ritchie

Date of Hearing: 5 August 2004
Date of Decision: 6 August 2004
The applicants were represented by Mr Wollerman and Mr Langmead SC.
The respondent was represented by Mr Parkin.