Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority

[2014] FCA 1009

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] FCA 1009

Citation:	Lloyd Helicopters Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2014] FCA 1009
Parties:	LLOYD HELICOPTERS PTY LTD v CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY, DESMOND JOHN BYFIELD and GREG DEAL
File number(s):	NSD 828 of 2014
Judge(s):	GRIFFITHS J
Date of judgment:	16 September 2014
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for judicial review – interlocutory hearing – dispute as to discovery categories – hearing premature.
Date of hearing:	16 September 2014
Place:	Sydney
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	6
Counsel for the applicant:	Mr T Brennan
Solicitor for the applicant:	Norton White
Counsel for the respondents:	Mr B Shields
Solicitor for the respondents:	Legal Branch Civil Aviation Safety Authority

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 828 of 2014

BETWEEN:

LLOYD HELICOPTERS PTY LTD
Applicant

AND:

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
First Respondent

DESMOND JOHN BYFIELD
Second Respondent

GREG DEAL
Third Respondent

JUDGE:	GRIFFITHS J
DATE OF ORDER:	16 SEPTEMBER 2014
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to today’s hearing.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NSD 828 of 2014

BETWEEN:

LLOYD HELICOPTERS PTY LTD
Applicant

AND:

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
First Respondent

DESMOND JOHN BYFIELD
Second Respondent

GREG DEAL
Third Respondent

JUDGE:	GRIFFITHS J
DATE:	16 SEPTEMBER 2014
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant has had the matter today relisted for the purpose of the Court hearing a dispute between the parties as to categories of documents sought by both the applicant and by the respondents in respect of the originating process, which is dated 11 August 2014.  The originating process is in the nature of an application for judicial review.

2. A total of 15 affidavits have been filed to date, some by the applicant and some also by the respondents.  Mr Brennan, who appears for the applicant, explained that the matter had been relisted by his client in circumstances where the parties had been unable to agree categories of discovery.  He then indicated that the argument would take approximately two hours and that there were quite a number of categories still in dispute.

3. I raised with Mr Brennan the fact that under the timetable that was set on 5 September 2014, when this matter was last before the Court, it included provision for the applicant to file and serve an amended originating process and points of claim by 19 September 2014, which is a few days away.

4. Mr Brennan explained that all the categories which are sought by his client and disputed by the respondents go to the allegation of actual bias in the present originating application.  I asked Mr Brennan to confirm whether he was in a position to indicate to the Court whether any of the proposed amendments to the originating application would touch upon the allegations of bias and he confirmed that he understood that to be the case.

5. In these circumstances, I consider that this application has been brought prematurely.  The Court does not have the benefit of a settled framework whereby it can measure whether documents within the disputed categories are directly relevant to an issue in the proceeding.  The Court, as well as the respondents, should have the opportunity to review the proposed amendments and the points of claim which accompany them.  The hearing of disputes as to the categories of discovery should await the proposed amendments and points of claim.

6. In the circumstances, it is appropriate that the applicant pay the respondents’ costs of and incidental to today’s hearing, which was brought on prematurely.

I certify that the preceding six (6) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Griffiths.

Associate:

Dated:        16 September 2014