Repacholi Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (No 2)

In the matter of Repacholi Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (No 2), the applicants sought leave to file a minute of a further re-amended statement of claim and, alternatively, to dismiss the respondent’s application for summary judgment. The applicants alleged that the respondent, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), breached its statutory powers under the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth), resulting in significant loss and damage. The primary legal issue before the court was whether CASA owed the applicants a common law duty of care in the exercise of its statutory powers to avoid causing them loss or damage. This issue required the court to consider whether CASA had a duty to exercise its statutory powers with reasonable care and to determine whether the alleged duty of care was inconsistent with CASA's statutory authority and functions.

The court examined the applicants’ submissions, which relied on the Full Court's decision in Repacholi No 1 and Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (2012) 203 FCR 325, among other cases. The applicants argued that distinctions existed between the previous cases and the current proceeding, particularly in relation to the circumstances surrounding the truck takeoff and the adequacy of CASA's investigation. The court assessed whether the applicants had a reasonable prospect of success in establishing that CASA owed them a duty of care as pleaded. Ultimately, the court concluded that the applicants had not sufficiently demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success on the pleaded facts. Consequently, the court granted the respondent’s application for summary judgment, dismissing the proceeding.

The court ordered that within 14 days, the respondent file and serve submissions on costs and the formulation of orders giving effect to these reasons. The applicants were then required to file and serve responsive submissions on costs and the formulation of orders within 14 days. The question of costs and the settling of orders was to be determined on the papers unless either party made an application to the court. The final judgment and determination on costs would be delivered in open court.