Dalton v Qantas Airways Ltd - [2020] NSWCATCD 2

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Dalton v Qantas Airways Ltd; Dalton v Morrison [2020] NSWCATCD 2
Hearing dates: 10 July 2020
Date of orders: 17 July 2020
Decision date: 17 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Consumer and Commercial Division
Before: M Harrowell, Deputy President
Decision:
1. By consent, the name of the respondents in application GEN 20/16147 is amended as follows:
a) the first respondent is Qantas Airways Ltd;
b) the second respondent is Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd
2. By consent, pursuant to s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the name of the respondents’ representative at the hearing on 10 July 2020 in application GEN 20/16147 is not to be disclosed to the applicant or any non-party, the representative to be known for the purpose of these proceedings as the “Jetstar Representative” and the Jetstar Representative is given leave to represent the respondents for the purpose of the hearing on 10 July 2020 only.
3. By consent, in application GEN 20/17371 leave is given to the respondent to be legally represented for the purpose of the hearing on 10 July 2020 only.
4. The Tribunal declines to deal with applications GEN 20/16147 and GEN 20/17371 as it has no jurisdiction to determine these proceedings.

Catchwords:
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – federal matter – jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine – Part 3A of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, 2013 – “Federal proceedings” – administrative functions of Tribunal when dispute involves federal jurisdiction.

Legislation Cited:
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, 2013 (NSW)
Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cwth)
Commonwealth Constitution
Consumer Claims Act 1998 (NSW) (repealed)
Fair Trading Act, 1987 (NSW)
Judiciary Act, 1903 (Cwth)
Residential Tenancies Act, 2010 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Attorney General for New South Wales v Gatsby [2018] NSWCA 54
Burns v Corbett; Burns v Gaynor; Attorney General for New South Wales v Burns; Attorney General for New South Wales v Burns; New South Wales v Burns [2018] HCA 15
Di Liristi v Matautia Developments Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 862
Jenkinson v Chaw [2015] NSWCATAP 127
Murphy v Trustees of Catholic Aged Care Sydney [2018] NSWCATAP 275

Category: Principal judgment
Parties:
GEN 20/16147

Applicant: Bradley Dalton
Respondent: Scott Morrison;

GEN 20/17371
Applicant: Bradley Dalton
First Respondent: Qantas Airways Ltd
Second Respondent: Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd
Representation:
GEN 20/16147

Applicant: In person
Respondent: Jetstar Representative

Solicitors

Not applicable

GEN 20/17371

Applicant: In person
Respondent: James Anderson (Solicitor)

Solicitors
Applicant: Not applicable
Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor

File Number(s): GEN 20/16147; GEN 20/17371
Publication restriction: See order re name of respondents’ representative in application GEN 20/16147

REASONS FOR DECISION

These reasons relate to two applications brought by Mr Dalton (Mr Dalton’s applications) arising from an international flight which he had booked from Sydney to Phuket, Thailand. The flight was scheduled to depart Sydney on 30 March 2020. Prior to the date of departure, the flight was cancelled in circumstances relating to the COVID-19 pandemic (pandemic) and decisions made by the airline carrier…

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 Dalton v Qantas Airways Ltd 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: [2020] NSWCATCD 2
Decision Date: 17 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dalton v Qantas Airways Ltd involved the plaintiff seeking a review of a decision made by the Civil and Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The plaintiff contested the CAT's decision to decline jurisdiction over certain applications. The dispute centred around the interpretation of Part 3A of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, specifically the definition of "federal proceedings" and the Tribunal's authority to determine matters involving federal jurisdiction.

The legal issues before the court were whether the CAT had the jurisdiction to determine the applications and if the applications could be classified as "federal proceedings" under the Act. The court had to consider the scope of the Tribunal's jurisdiction, particularly in relation to administrative functions and the determination of disputes involving federal matters.

The court found that the applications were not "federal proceedings" within the meaning of Part 3A of the Act. Consequently, the CAT lacked jurisdiction to determine the applications. The court emphasised the importance of correctly categorising the nature of the proceedings to ensure that the appropriate legal framework and tribunal were engaged. The court declined to deal with the applications as it did not have the jurisdiction to determine them.

The court issued several orders by consent, including amending the names of the respondents, allowing a representative to be undisclosed to the applicant and non-parties, and permitting legal representation for the respondent. Ultimately, the court dismissed the applications as it did not have the jurisdiction to determine the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. By consent, the name of the respondents in application GEN 20/16147 is amended as follows:

a) the first respondent is Qantas Airways Ltd;

b) the second respondent is Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd

2. By consent, pursuant to s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the name of the respondents’ representative at the hearing on 10 July 2020 in application GEN 20/16147 is not to be disclosed to the applicant or any non-party, the representative to be known for the purpose of these proceedings as the “Jetstar Representative” and the Jetstar Representative is given leave to represent the respondents for the purpose of the hearing on 10 July 2020 only.

3. By consent, in application GEN 20/17371 leave is given to the respondent to be legally represented for the purpose of the hearing on 10 July 2020 only.

4. The Tribunal declines to deal with applications GEN 20/16147 and GEN 20/17371 as it has no jurisdiction to determine these proceedings.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Dalton v Qantas Airways Ltd; Dalton v Morrison [2020] NSWCATCD 2
Hearing dates:	10 July 2020
Date of orders:	17 July 2020
Decision date:	17 July 2020
Jurisdiction:	Consumer and Commercial Division
Before:	M Harrowell, Deputy President
Decision:	1. By consent, the name of the respondents in application GEN 20/16147 is amended as follows: a) the first respondent is Qantas Airways Ltd; b) the second respondent is Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd 2. By consent, pursuant to s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 the name of the respondents’ representative at the hearing on 10 July 2020 in application GEN 20/16147 is not to be disclosed to the applicant or any non-party, the representative to be known for the purpose of these proceedings as the “Jetstar Representative” and the Jetstar Representative is given leave to represent the respondents for the purpose of the hearing on 10 July 2020 only. 3. By consent, in application GEN 20/17371 leave is given to the respondent to be legally represented for the purpose of the hearing on 10 July 2020 only. 4. The Tribunal declines to deal with applications GEN 20/16147 and GEN 20/17371 as it has no jurisdiction to determine these proceedings.
Catchwords:	CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – federal matter – jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine – Part 3A of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, 2013 – “Federal proceedings” – administrative functions of Tribunal when dispute involves federal jurisdiction.
Legislation Cited:	Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act, 2013 (NSW) Civil Aviation (Carriers’ Liability) Act 1959 (Cwth) Commonwealth Constitution Consumer Claims Act 1998 (NSW) (repealed) Fair Trading Act, 1987 (NSW) Judiciary Act, 1903 (Cwth) Residential Tenancies Act, 2010 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Attorney General for New South Wales v Gatsby [2018] NSWCA 54 Burns v Corbett; Burns v Gaynor; Attorney General for New South Wales v Burns; Attorney General for New South Wales v Burns; New South Wales v Burns [2018] HCA 15 Di Liristi v Matautia Developments Pty Ltd [2020] NSWSC 862 Jenkinson v Chaw [2015] NSWCATAP 127 Murphy v Trustees of Catholic Aged Care Sydney [2018] NSWCATAP 275
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	GEN 20/16147 Applicant: Bradley Dalton Respondent: Scott Morrison; GEN 20/17371 Applicant: Bradley Dalton First Respondent: Qantas Airways Ltd Second Respondent: Jetstar Airways Pty Ltd
Representation:	GEN 20/16147 Applicant: In person Respondent: Jetstar Representative Solicitors Not applicable GEN 20/17371 Applicant: In person Respondent: James Anderson (Solicitor) Solicitors Applicant: Not applicable Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
File Number(s):	GEN 20/16147; GEN 20/17371
Publication restriction:	See order re name of respondents’ representative in application GEN 20/16147