May, Peter Lawrence v The Secretary, Department of Transport

The appellant, Peter Lawrence May, challenged the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which had upheld the respondent's decision to refuse the renewal of the appellant's airline transport pilot licence, and to cancel his commercial pilot licence and radiotelephone operator licence. The crux of the matter was the interpretation of the term "latent physical disability" as it applies to the appellant's fitness to hold such licences under the Air Navigation Orders. The appellant argued that the AAT misconstrued the meaning of "latent physical disability," and that the statistical likelihood of epilepsy was not sufficient to establish such a disability.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the AAT correctly interpreted the term "latent physical disability," and if the likelihood of epilepsy alone was enough to establish this disability. The appellant contended that the AAT had incorrectly applied the law by not considering the specific statutory definition of "latent physical disability" and whether the statistical risk of developing epilepsy met the criteria for such a disability. The court had to determine if the AAT's decision was legally sound and if there was any error in its interpretation of the relevant legislation and regulations.

The court found that the AAT had indeed misconstrued the meaning of "latent physical disability" as it was defined in the Air Navigation Orders. The court held that the term must be interpreted in accordance with its ordinary meaning and the context of the statute. It was not sufficient for the AAT to rely on the statistical likelihood of epilepsy alone to establish a latent physical disability. The court emphasised that the disability must pose a significant risk to safety and be more than a mere statistical possibility. The court further held that the AAT failed to properly consider the evidence and the legal standards applicable to the appellant's case.

Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the decision of the AAT was set aside. The case was remitted back to the AAT to be heard afresh, with the opportunity to receive further evidence as deemed necessary. The court also ordered that the respondent pay the appellant's costs of the appeal.