Saraya, Alaa v Civil Aviation Authority

The case of Saraya, Alaa v Civil Aviation Safety Authority involved the applicant, Alaa Saraya, who sought a review of the decision made by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) regarding his application for an Australian Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (AME) licence. The primary dispute was whether the applicant's application should be assessed under regulation 31(6) of the Civil Aviation Regulations or under regulation 31(4), and whether the authority had the power to impose a requirement for six months of practical experience in Australia. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues the court had to decide were whether the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) had jurisdiction to review the decision, and if so, whether the AAT correctly interpreted the regulations in affirming CASA's decision. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the requirement for six months of practical experience was a valid requirement under regulation 31(6)(b) and whether there was a "reviewable decision" within the meaning of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 for the AAT to review.

The court found that there was no "reviewable decision" as defined by the Civil Aviation Act 1988, which requires a refusal to grant or issue, or a cancellation, suspension or variation of, a licence. In this case, CASA had not yet made a refusal to grant the licence but had merely requested the applicant to complete six months of relevant experience. The court held that since no reviewable decision had been made, the AAT did not have jurisdiction to review the decision. The court further found that the requirement for six months of practical experience had not been decided by CASA and was not a requirement imposed under regulation 31(6)(b). The court concluded that the AAT had misconstrued the facts and the applicable regulations, leading to an erroneous decision.

The Federal Court dismissed the application for review and certified that the reasons for judgment were a true copy. The court made no order as to costs but indicated it would hear the parties on that issue.