Rudd and Civil Aviation Safety Authority

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Mr. Rudd seeking review of a decision made by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). The dispute arose from Mr. Rudd's dissatisfaction with an "investigation" conducted by CASA concerning an alleged obscene and threatening phone call. Mr. Rudd contended that the investigation was flawed, biased, and that he was not properly informed of its findings. He sought a de novo review of the matter by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether it possessed jurisdiction to review the document identified by Mr. Rudd as the "decision" of CASA's investigation. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the "Executive Summary" dated 19 July 2016, purportedly signed by Ms. Christine Buckland, an Investigating Officer, constituted a "reviewable decision" under the relevant legislative instruments governing civil aviation matters. The Tribunal's jurisdiction is confined to reviewing decisions made under specific provisions of the *Civil Aviation Act 1988*, the *Civil Aviation (Buildings Control) Regulations 1988*, the *Civil Aviation Regulations 1988*, and the *Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998*.

The Tribunal reasoned that it could only proceed on the material before it, which at that stage consisted solely of the "Executive Summary." It noted that Mr. Rudd claimed not to possess the full suite of documentary material detailing the investigation and that his ability to obtain further documents was uncertain. The Tribunal concluded that the "Executive Summary" document, as presented, did not appear to be a decision made under any of the specified legislative instruments that would confer jurisdiction upon the Tribunal for a de novo review. Consequently, the Tribunal found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the matter.

The application was dismissed pursuant to s 42A(4) of the *Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975* on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction.