Helilogging Ltd (in rec and liq) v Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand

Helilogging Limited, a company in receivership and liquidation, and its former director, Mark Wayne Ford, (the plaintiffs) brought a proceeding against the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand (the defendant). The plaintiffs sought damages for the defendant’s alleged misfeasance in a public office and deceit in connection with the defendant’s decision not to grant the plaintiffs an exemption to use a Wessex helicopter for logging purposes. The High Court found in favour of the defendant and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs sought to appeal that decision. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal was dismissed and the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief they sought. The plaintiffs wished to use a Wessex helicopter for logging purposes. They made an application to the defendant for an exemption from certain requirements in the Civil Aviation Rules 1996. The defendant declined the application and the plaintiffs commenced the present proceeding in the High Court against the defendant. They alleged that the defendant had committed misfeasance in a public office and deceit in connection with the defendant’s decision not to grant the application. The High Court dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found that the appeal was without merit and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief they sought. The Court of Appeal found that the plaintiffs had not established that the defendant had acted dishonestly. The plaintiffs had not established that the defendant had acted beyond its powers or functions or that it had acted recklessly indifferent to this. The Court of Appeal found that the plaintiffs had not established that the defendant had made an untrue representation to the plaintiffs. The Court of Appeal found that there were difficulties in upholding the plaintiffs’ claimed loss if misfeasance or deceit as alleged had been established. The Court of Appeal found that a reasonable Director could have declined the plaintiffs’ application and a reasonable Director could have granted the plaintiffs’ application. The Court of Appeal found that there was no basis to find the defendant was vicariously liable for any tort committed by Mr Lewis. The Court of Appeal found that the plaintiffs had not established the elements of misfeasance in a public office or deceit. The Court of Appeal found that the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed and the plaintiffs were not entitled to the relief they sought.