Griffiths v Civil Aviation Authority

Roy Frederick Griffiths appeals against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirming a decision by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to vary his commercial and private pilot's licences. The CAA had imposed restrictions on Griffiths' licences due to his non-compliance with aviation laws and regulations. The AAT affirmed the CAA's decision but also made an additional finding that Griffiths was not a fit and proper person to hold unrestricted pilot licences. Griffiths contests the AAT's additional finding, arguing that it would limit his future rights of appeal. The legal issues before the court were whether the AAT erred in law by making an additional finding beyond affirming the CAA's decision, and whether this finding would limit Griffiths' future rights of appeal.

The court held that the AAT erred in law by making an additional finding that was not part of the CAA's decision. The court noted that the AAT is not bound by the CAA's decision but cannot both affirm and substitute it. The court found that the AAT's additional finding was beyond affirming the CAA's decision and was therefore an error of law. The court also held that the finding would not limit Griffiths' future rights of appeal, as he would still have the right to apply for the lifting of restrictions and appeal any refusal by the CAA. The parties agreed to the court's suggestion that the AAT's additional finding should be removed, and the court ordered the parties to prepare minutes of orders to that effect.

The court ordered that the appeal be allowed to the extent that the AAT's additional finding be removed, and that Griffiths pay the CAA's costs.