Legal Research
Cases
McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority

McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Case [2004] FCA 1701 22 December 2004

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2004] FCA 1701
Civil Aviation Act, 1988
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988
Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550
State of South Australia v Slipper [2004] FCAFC 164
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564
Stollery v Greyhound Racing Control Board (1972) 128 CLR 509
Fowell v Ioannou (1982) 45 ALR 491
Nashua Australia Pty Ltd v Channon (1981) 36 ALR 215
FAI Insurances Ltd v Winneke (1982) 151 CLR 342
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Haj-Ismail (1982) 40 ALR 341
Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596
Attorney General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1
R v North and East Devon Health Authority; Ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213
Li Shuk Fan v Director of Immigration [2002] HKCAFA 2
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
Queensland Medical Laboratory & v Blewett (1988) 84 ALR 615
RG Capital Radio Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority (2001) 185 ALR 573
Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Boatman [2004] FCAFC 165
Heatley v Tasmanian Racing and Gaming Commission (1977) 137 CLR 487
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476
Ha v NSW (1997) 189 CLR 465
State of South Australia v Slipper (2003) 203 ALR 473
M Allars, ‘Reputation, Power and Fairness’ (1996) 24 Federal Law Review 235
L Aitken, ‘Jurisdiction, Liability and “Double Function” Legislation’ (1990) 19 Federal Law Review 31
LUKE MAXWELL McWILLIAM & ANOR v CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
VID 1127 OF 2004
SELWAY J
22 DECEMBER 2004
ADELAIDE (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 1127 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

LUKE MAXWELL McWILLIAM
FIRST APPLICANT

SKYDIVE CITY PTY LTD
ACN 101 558 892
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

SELWAY J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 DECEMBER 2004

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

PURSUANT TO SECTION 16(1) OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS (JUDICIAL REVIEW) ACT 1977, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Instrument 63/04 made by the respondent on 13 February 2004 is quashed.
2. Instrument 64/04 made by the respondent on 13 February 2004 is quashed.
3.The matter of whether directions should be made by the respondent relating to the safety of air navigation at Barwon Heads aerodrome is referred back to the respondent for such further consideration and action as it thinks necessary or appropriate in accordance with law.
4.The matter of whether written specifications should be made by the respondent as to parachute descents at Barwon Heads aerodrome is referred back to the respondent for such further consideration and action as it thinks necessary or appropriate in accordance with law.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 1127 OF 2004

BETWEEN:

LUKE MAXWELL McWILLIAM
FIRST APPLICANT

SKYDIVE CITY PTY LTD
ACN 101 558 892
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY…

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.

Continue reading McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Details

AGLC: McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2004] FCA 1701
Case: [2004] FCA 1701
Decision Date: 22 DECEMBER 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Mr McWilliam, an aviation operator, and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). Mr McWilliam was accused of multiple instances of non-compliance with safety regulations, specifically parachuting through cloud. The court was required to determine whether CASA had acted lawfully in its dealings with Mr McWilliam and the Australian Parachute Federation (APF), and whether the safety of air navigation could be effectively maintained at Barwon Heads aerodrome.

The court identified several key legal issues. Firstly, whether CASA had the authority to issue instruments banning Mr McWilliam from parachuting operations and to exclude him from coverage under the Civil Aviation Regulations (CAR). Secondly, the court needed to consider whether CASA's decision-making process was procedurally fair and whether it had adequately considered the safety implications of allowing Mr McWilliam to resume operations. Thirdly, the court had to determine whether the respondent's decision to refer the matter back for further consideration was appropriate.

The court found that CASA had not acted unreasonably in its dealings with Mr McWilliam. It was noted that CASA had no specific power to remove Mr McWilliam from aviation operations entirely but could issue a new instrument to exclude him from parachuting. The court concluded that CASA had appropriately considered the safety risks and the evidence of non-compliance. The decision to refer the matter back to CASA for further consideration was deemed appropriate given the history of non-compliance and the obstruction of CASA's efforts by the APF.

The court issued specific orders quashing two instruments issued by CASA and referred the matter back to CASA for further consideration. The court mandated that CASA consider and take necessary action regarding the safety of air navigation at Barwon Heads aerodrome and whether written specifications should be made for parachute descents there. This decision underscored the importance of safety and regulatory compliance in aviation operations.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Instrument 63/04 made by the respondent on 13 February 2004 is quashed.

2. Instrument 64/04 made by the respondent on 13 February 2004 is quashed.

3. The matter of whether directions should be made by the respondent relating to the safety of air navigation at Barwon Heads aerodrome is referred back to the respondent for such further consideration and action as it thinks necessary or appropriate in accordance with law.

4. The matter of whether written specifications should be made by the respondent as to parachute descents at Barwon Heads aerodrome is referred back to the respondent for such further consideration and action as it thinks necessary or appropriate in accordance with law.

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

SELWAY J

On 13 August 2004 Rothwell advised Mr Gemmell that in light of Begg’s withdrawal, the proposed ‘mediated solution’ was no longer appropriate. He recommended that the status quo be maintained. On 19 August 2004 Rothwell again recommended to Mr Gemmell that the status quo be maintained. He discussed four options, option one of which was the retention of the status quo. He advised: ‘CASA knowledge of McWilliam's operation indicates a pattern of noncompliance over a considerable period. CASA has sent Compliance staff to YBRS on a number of occasions and despite knowing of our presence and that of the Chief Executive of the APF Mr McWilliam permitted parachuting through cloud. Further instances were observed by an unannounced audit which resulted in the issuance of the current instrument. The Court found proven 21 instances of parachuting through cloud by Mc William. The APF has actively refused to provide CASA with the identity information of other individuals for whom CASA can demonstrate illegal operations. Far from assisting CASA to secure compliance, the APF is actively frustrating that action. Therefore I have no confidence in the APF taking any significant compliance action. Mr Ogilvie reports “The APF is unlikely to pull McWilliam into line.”CASA arranged mediation between the parties however according to one party, that mediation was approached in the context of having to find a solution that allowed Mr McWilliam back on Barwon Heads aerodrome. Mrs Begg as operator of the Aerodrome and of an AOC holding flying training school has since withdrawn from the mediated outcome on this basis and on the basis of the results of the legal action.It is noted that CASA has no specific power to remove a repetitively non compliant parachute business operator from his participation in aviation or parachuting. No other aviation participant would be permitted to continue in operation with this man's track record. Compare even the infringement system outcome if that were able to be applied to his situation. Legal advice is that it would be possible to issue a new CAR 152 general parachuting instrument naming him and excluding him from coverage and thus a permission to engage in parachuting however it could not exclude him from continuing to run the parachuting business but only from actually jumping himself - an outcome not worth pursuing in safety terms.…RECOMMENDED DECISION:If I as the responsible manager were taking this decision I would leave the Status Quo - Option One in place.I do recognise this is not a clean issue and there are arguments for other courses of action including allowing parachuting to resume at YBRS subject to safety conditions.The history of the parachuting operator's non compliance with regulatory requirements and the APF's history of both non enforcement and obstruction of CASA efforts means that any relaxation of the existing ban needs to be such that the compliance with conditions can be clearly determined and evidenced.Because of the ill will of all participants and the difficulty in ensuring compliance with necessary conditions is maintained, I recommend Option One but the safest option that allows parachuting to return to YBRS is Option Four [New CAR 92 imposing segregated operations within the aerodrome].’

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: SELWAY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2004] FCA 1701

Most Recent Citation

Herbert v Chief of Air Force [2018] ADFDAT 1

Cases Citing This Decision

Larter v Hazzard [2022] NSWCA 238
Citation 1

…does not turn upon whether or not they were of an administrative or legislative character (and the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive: see McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2004) 142 FCR 74; [2004] FCA 1701 at [39] and the reasons of Leeming JA at [153]-[155] below). Rather, the question is simply whether the Impugned Orders wer…
Ishiyama v Dr Peter Aitken, Former Chief Health Officer; Baxter v Dr John Gerrard, Chief Health Officer; Hunt v Dr John Gerrard, Chief Health Officer [2022] QSC 41
Citation 2 (Para 16)

…t that a decision or act might bear both administrative and legislative characters.[12] [12]Selway J, McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2004) 214 ALR 251, 259 and 260 and Kassam (above), [77] and [153]-[155].…
Disorganized Developments Pty Ltd v The State of South Australia [2022] SASCA 6
Citation 3 (Para 14)

…stitutional arrangements to draw a clear or “bright line” distinction between legislative and administrative powers. [25] (2004) 142 FCR 74. [26] McWilliam v Civil Aviation Authority (2004) 142 FCR 74 at [41] (Selway J).…
Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWCA 299
Citation 4 (Para 77)

…tive or legislative character (and the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive: see McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2004) 142 FCR 74; [2004] FCA 1701 at [39] and the reasons of Leeming JA at [153]-[155] below). Rather, the question is simply whether the Impugned Orders were authorised by s 7 of the…
Kassam v Hazzard; Henry v Hazzard [2021] NSWSC 1320
Citation 5

…; [2013] HCA 39 McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2004) 142 FCR 474; [2004] FCA 1701 Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Ltd (1986) 162 CLR 24; [1986] HCA 40 Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Stretton [2016] FCAFC 11 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng…
Herbert v Chief of Air Force [2018] ADFDAT 1
Citation 6 (Para 26)

…However, in McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2004) 142 FCR 74; [2004] FCA 1701, Selway J observed that previous authority should not be understood as suggesting that administrative and legislative decisions fall into two mutually exclusive categories or that such categories can be clearly identified by…
Harbour Radio Pty Ltd v Australian Communications and Media Authority [2012] FCA 614
Citation 7 (Para 18)

…ontend, it should be acknowledged that a particular decision need not be exclusively legislative or administrative: it might have both qualities (see McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2004) 142 FCR 74 at [41]-[42] per Selway J).…
Schwennesen v Minister for Environment and Resource Management [2010] QCA 340
Citation 8

…) 34 ALR 333; [1981] FCA 38, cited McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2004) 142 FCR 74; (2004) 214 ALR 251; [2004] FCA 1701, discussed Queensland Medical Laboratory v Blewett (1988) 84 ALR 615; [1988] FCA 423, discussed R v Toohey; Ex parte Northern Land Council (1981) 151 CLR 170; [1981] HCA 74, cited R…
William Alfred Schwennesen v Minister for Environment and Resource Management [2010] QSC 81
Citation 9 (Para 1)

…ive characteristics as well as legislative, that would be sufficient to invoke the operation of the Judicial Review Act. [69](1994) 85 LGERA 134. [70](2004) 214 ALR 251.…
Tubbo Pty Ltd v Minister Administering the Water Management Act 2000 [2008] NSWCA 356
Citation 10 (Para 5)

…ispute in the authorities that the issue of duty (and content) is primarily resolved through a process of statutory construction. McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2004) 142 FCR 74 at [43], referred to by the applicants, is not authority to the contrary as it is dealing with ‘decisions of an administrative character’ for the purpose of t…
McWilliam and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2008] AATA 687
Citation 11

…m and Skydive City Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2004) 214 ALR 251 McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2004] FCA 1701 Re Luke McWilliam and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2005] AATA 1148 Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 46 FLR 409 Australian Securities and Investme…
Hurworth Nominees Pty Limited v ANZ Banking Group Limited [2006] NSWSC 1278
Citation 12

…and Multicultural Affairs (1997) 150 ALR 397 Gain v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1997) 42 NSWLR 252 Lonrho plc v Fayed (No 2) [1991] 4 All ER 961 McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2004) 142 FCR 74 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Epeabaka (1999) 160 ALR 543 SWV Pty Ltd v Spiroc Pty Ltd [2006] NSWSC 668 Varga v Com…
Strutt & Anor v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2006] FMCA 1245
Citation 13

…59 Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611 McWilliam v Civil Aviation Authority [2004] FCA 1701 Applicants: RICHARD STRUTT and HILL TUCKER First Respondent: AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY PHaRMACY AUTHORITY Second Respondent: SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND AGEING Third Responde…
McWilliam and Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2005] AATA 1148
Citation 14 (Para 1)

…illiam and Skydive a fair hearing before it made the two Instruments. [16] McWilliam and Skydive City Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2004] FCA 1701; (2004) 214 ALR 251…
Victorian WorkCover Authority v Andrews [2005] FCA 94
Citation 15 (Para 19)

…nsider the effect of Lam and of the duty to afford a fair hearing arising from a “legitimate expectation” in McWilliam v Civil Aviation Authority [2004] FCA 1701, particularly at [30]-[34]. The view I reached was that the words “legitimate expectation” were still useful. However, the words were descriptive of a pr…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Boatman [2004] FCAFC 165
Citation 1 (Para 14)

…is not possible to draw clear distinctions based upon specified criteria. I attempted to make this point in Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Boatman [2004] FCAFC 165 at [75] ‘However, the basic problem with any analysis based solely upon the consideration of a number of factors, whether individually or cumulativel…
South Australia v Slipper [2004] FCAFC 164
Citation 2 (Para 2)

…t argument raises a number of interesting questions, including the source of the requirements of natural justice under the ‘general’ law (see State of South Australia v Slipper (2003) 203 ALR 473 at [19]-[20]), and the source of the power to confer a remedy for breach of those requirements (see L Aitken, ‘Jurisdiction, Liability and “Doubl…
State of South Australia v Honourable Peter Slipper MP [2003] FCA 1414
Citation 3 (Para 2)

…esting questions, including the source of the requirements of natural justice under the ‘general’ law (see State of South Australia v Slipper (2003) 203 ALR 473 at [19]-[20]), and the source of the power to confer a remedy for breach of those requirements (see L Aitken, ‘Jurisdiction, Liability and “Double Function”…
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; ex parte Lam [2003] HCA 6
Citation 4 (Para 8)

…The concerns noted by Brennan J have recently been taken up by the High Court in Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1 ( Lam ) see Gleeson CJ at [28], [32]-[34]; McHugh and Gummow JJ at [47]-[48], [61]-[67], [81]-[83]; Hayne J at [116]-[121]; Callinan J at [140]-[148].…
Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth [2003] HCA 2
Citation 5 (Para 26)

…It would seem clear that a decision made in breach of the requirements of a fair hearing is invalid: Plaintiff S157/2002 v Commonwealth (2003) 211 CLR 476. Without seeking to limit the breadth of the powers conferred by s 16(1) of the ADJR Act, it is my view that the most appropriate course generally in relation to d…
Pasini v United Mexican States [2002] HCA 3
Citation 6 (Para 14)

…r and obvious. The areas of overlap between, for example, many judicial and executive functions is considerable: see Pasini v United Mexican States (2002) 209 CLR 246 (Pasini) at 265. One of the functions of the executive is the enforcement of the law. Although the executive is required to defer to the judiciary as t…
RG Capital Radio Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority [2001] FCA 855
Citation 7 (Para 13)

…ministrative’ decisions by reference to that distinction. The Full Court did the same in RG Capital Radio Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Authority (2001) 185 ALR 573 ( RG Capital ) at 580 ff. However, these decisions should not be understood as suggesting that administrative and legislative decisions fall into two mut…
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte MIAH [2001] HCA 22
Citation 8 (Para 4)

…ress terms or by necessary implication: Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 at 584; Re Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57 at 93; on “necessary implication”, see B v Auckland District Law Society [2004] 1 NZLR 326 at 349; (ii) a legislative intention to exclude the rules will…
State of Western Australia v Native Title Registrar [1999] FCA 1594
Citation 9 (Para 4)

…(1996) 67 FCR 40 at 59; although it may in the circumstances reduce its content: J Wattie Canneries Ltd v Hayes (1987) 74 ALR 202 at 214; State of Western Australia v Native Title Registrar (1999) 95 FCR 93.’…
State of Western Australia v Native Title Registrar [1999] FCA 1591
Citation 10 (Para 4)

…mstances reduce its content: J Wattie Canneries Ltd v Hayes (1987) 74 ALR 202 at 214; State of Western Australia v Native Title Registrar (1999) 95 FCR 93.’…
H A Bachrach Pty Ltd v Queensland [1998] HCA 54
Citation 11 (Para 14)

…than anything inherent in the task itself: see R v Hegarty; Ex parte City of Salisbury (1981) 147 CLR 617 at 628 ; HA Bachrach Pty Ltd v Queensland (1998) 195 CLR 547 at 562. Not only is there no “bright line” distinction between judicial and other governmental functions there is, in fact, no line at all in relation…
Ha v New South Wales [1997] HCA 34
Citation 12 (Para 1)

…ropriate to stay an order for the apparent purpose of seeking to preserve the continued operation of an invalid administrative decision: see Ha v NSW (1997) 189 CLR 465 at 503-504.…
Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10
Citation 13 (Para 5)

…g to a person is not limited to instances where the decision would affect the legal rights of that person. In Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 175 CLR 564 ( Ainsworth ), for example, a right to a fair hearing arose because the relevant inquiry (and subsequent report) adversely affected the ‘business rep…
Annetts v McCann [1990] HCA 57
Citation 14 (Para 4)

…rred merely from the presence in the statute of rights which are commensurate with some of the rules of procedural fairness: Annetts v McCann (1990) 170 CLR 596 at 598; and (iv) while the rules may be excluded because the power in question is of its nature one to be exercised in circumstances of urgency or emergency:…
Attorney-General (NSW) v Quin [1990] HCA 21
Citation 15 (Para 7)

…ion did not assist in identifying the circumstances where a duty to afford natural justice arose: see, for example, Attorney General (NSW) v Quin (1990) 170 CLR 1 ( Quin ) at 38-41. Further, Brennan J expressed concern that the concept of ‘legitimate expectation’ might be used not merely to identify the circumstanc…
Queensland Medical Laboratory v Blewett [1988] FCA 423
Citation 16 (Para 13)

…. I note that this distinction would seem to have been drawn in some of the cases. For example, Gummow J in Queensland Medical Laboratory & v Blewett (1988) 84 ALR 615 ( Blewett ) at 633-634 drew attention to the constitutional distinction between legislative, executive and judicial powers and then sought to identif…
Kioa v West [1985] HCA 81
Citation 17 (Para 4)

…Section 5(1)(a) of the ADJR Act reflects the usual rules of administrative law: see Kioa v West (1985) 159 CLR 550 at 567. Consequently, subject to any express statutory limitation or qualification, the usual principles apply in determining whether the rules of natural justice are attracted to a particular decision a…
Ioannou v Fowell [1984] HCA 24
Citation 18 (Para 5)

…: see Stollery v Greyhound Racing Control Board (1972) 128 CLR 509; but a decision by a particular employer not to employ a person may not: see Fowell v Ioannou (1982) 45 ALR 491 at 510-511 unless the decision was based upon some adverse finding relating to the person’s reputation or capacity: see M Allars, ‘Reputation, P…
FAI Insurances Ltd v Winneke [1982] HCA 26
Citation 19 (Para 5)

…give rise to such an obligation at least if there was a reasonable expectation that it would be renewed: see FAI Insurances Ltd v Winneke (1982) 151 CLR 342 contrast Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Haj-Ismail (1982) 40 ALR 341 at 348.…
Akpan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1982] FCA 51
Citation 20 (Para 5)

…t would be renewed: see FAI Insurances Ltd v Winneke (1982) 151 CLR 342 contrast Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Haj-Ismail (1982) 40 ALR 341 at 348.…
R v Hegarty; Ex parte City of Salisbury [1981] HCA 51
Citation 21 (Para 14)

…t upon what body has been chosen to perform the task, rather than anything inherent in the task itself: see R v Hegarty; Ex parte City of Salisbury (1981) 147 CLR 617 at 628 ; HA Bachrach Pty Ltd v Queensland (1998) 195 CLR 547 at 562. Not only is there no “bright line” distinction between judicial and other governme…
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1979] FCA 39
Citation 22 (Para 14)

…administrative tribunals and other administrative decision makers can determine legal issues in the context of making administrative decisions: see Drake v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1979) 24 ALR 577, 584-585. In making those decisions they are usually required to adopt procedures which bear some similarity to those adopted in some courts…
Heatley v Tasmanian Racing and Gaming Commission [1977] HCA 39
Citation 23 (Para 19)

…metimes permit temporary action pending the opportunity for a final determination of the issues (see Heatley v Tasmanian Racing and Gaming Commission (1977) 137 CLR 487 at 513-515) that is not what occurred in this case. Rothwell reached final conclusions as to the fault of the applicants. Whatever occurred thereafte…
Stollery v Greyhound Racing Control Board [1972] HCA 53
Citation 24 (Para 5)

…s otherwise qualified would almost certainly give rise to an obligation to afford a fair hearing: see Stollery v Greyhound Racing Control Board (1972) 128 CLR 509; but a decision by a particular employer not to employ a person may not: see Fowell v Ioannou (1982) 45 ALR 491 at 510-511 unless the decision was based up…
Commissioner of Police v Tanos [1958] HCA 6
Citation 25 (Para 4)

…will not be assumed or spelled out from indirect references, uncertain inferences or equivocal considerations: Commissioner of Police v Tanos (1958) 98 CLR 383 at 396; (iii) an intention to exclude should not be inferred merely from the presence in the statute of rights which are commensurate with some of the rules…
A v Hayden ("ASIS case") [1984] HCA 67
Citation 26 (Para 14)

…what the law requires in any particular instance. Indeed, subject to the proper role of the courts, the executive is required to do so: A v Hayden (1984) 156 CLR 532 at 562; P & C Cantarella v Egg Marketing Board [1973] 2 NSWLR 366 at 383. For that purpose administrative tribunals and other administrative decision m…
Marine Hull and Liability Insurance Co Ltd v Hurford [1985] FCA 548
Citation 27 (Para 4)

…question is of its nature one to be exercised in circumstances of urgency or emergency: Marine Hull and Liability Insurance Co Ltd v Hurford (1985) 10 FCR 234 at 241; “urgency cannot generally be allowed to exclude the right to natural justice”: Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Affairs v State of…
[1996] FCA 395 [1996] FCA 395
Citation 28 (Para 4)

…llowed to exclude the right to natural justice”: Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders Affairs v State of Western Australia (1996) 67 FCR 40 at 59; although it may in the circumstances reduce its content: J Wattie Canneries Ltd v Hayes (1987) 74 ALR 202 at 214; State of Western Australia v Native Titl…
[2001] QB 213 [2001] QB 213
Citation 29 (Para 7)

…seems subsequently to have occurred in England and elsewhere: see, for example, R v North and East Devon Health Authority; Ex parte Coughlan [2001] QB 213; Li Shuk Fan v Director of Immigration [2002] HKCAFA 2 [87]-[99].…
[2004] 1 NZLR 326 [2004] 1 NZLR 326
Citation 30 (Para 4)

…Immigration & Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte Miah (2001) 206 CLR 57 at 93; on “necessary implication”, see B v Auckland District Law Society [2004] 1 NZLR 326 at 349; (ii) a legislative intention to exclude the rules will not be assumed or spelled out from indirect references, uncertain inferences or equivocal cons…

Legislation Cited

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 2)
Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 4)
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 16)
Constitution of Australia (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 16)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIAN DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 1127 OF 2004

BETWEEN:	LUKE MAXWELL McWILLIAM FIRST APPLICANT SKYDIVE CITY PTY LTD ACN 101 558 892 SECOND APPLICANT
AND:	CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	SELWAY J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 DECEMBER 2004
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)