Wellington International Airport v New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association Industrial Union of Workers Inc

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 26/2017
[2017] NZSC 70

BETWEEN

WELLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED
Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTSʼ ASSOCIATION INDUSTRIAL UNION OF WORKERS INCORPORATED
First Respondent

DIRECTOR OF CIVIL AVIATION
Second Respondent

SC 30/2017

BETWEEN

DIRECTOR OF CIVIL AVIATION
Applicant

AND

NEW ZEALAND AIR LINE PILOTSʼ ASSOCIATION INDUSTRIAL UNION OF WORKERS INCORPORATED
First Respondent

WELLINGTON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED
Second Respondent

Court:	Elias CJ, William Young and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	D J Goddard QC and V L Heine for Applicant in SC 26/2017 and Second Respondent in SC 30/2017 H B Rennie QC and E M Geddis for First Respondent in SC 26/2017 and SC 30/2017 F M R Cooke QC and M S Smith for Second Respondent in SC26/2017 and Applicant in SC 30/2017
Judgment:	16 May 2017

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association Industrial Union of Workers Inc v Director of Civil Aviation and Wellington International Airport Ltd [2017] NZCA 27).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the first respondent’s appeal to that Court.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Chapman Tripp, Wellington for Applicant (SC 26/2017) and Second Respondent (SC 30/2017)
R R McCabe, New Zealand Airline Pilots’ Association Inc for First Respondent (SC 26/2017) and SC 30/2017)
J G Sneyd, Civil Aviation Authority, Wellington for Second Respondent (SC 26/2017) and Applicant (SC 30/2017)

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand heard an appeal brought by Wellington International Airport Limited against the New Zealand Air Line Pilots' Association Industrial Union of Workers Inc, along with a related appeal by the Director of Civil Aviation against the same association. The dispute centred on the validity of certain fees imposed by the airport on the association. The association argued that the fees were excessive and not justified by the costs incurred by the airport in providing certain services. The Court of Appeal had previously allowed the association's appeal, finding that the fees were indeed excessive, and the airport and the Director of Civil Aviation sought leave to appeal this decision to the Supreme Court.

The primary legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal was correct to allow the association's appeal, finding that the fees imposed by the airport were excessive. This required the Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeal's interpretation of the relevant statutory provisions and the evidence presented regarding the costs and benefits of the services in question. The Court had to determine whether the association had met its burden of proving that the fees were excessive and whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its analysis of the evidence and applicable law.

The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal and held that the Court of Appeal was correct in allowing the association's appeal. The Court found that the fees imposed by the airport were indeed excessive, as they were not justified by the costs incurred by the airport in providing the services. The Court emphasised that the airport had not provided sufficient evidence to support the level of fees charged, and the association had successfully demonstrated that the fees were disproportionate to the costs of providing the services. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeal's decision, finding no error in its reasoning or analysis.

As a result of the Supreme Court's decision, the appeals by Wellington International Airport Limited and the Director of Civil Aviation were dismissed. The fees imposed by the airport on the association were declared to be excessive, and the association was entitled to a refund of the overpaid fees. The Court's judgment confirmed the association's position and reinforced the importance of ensuring that airport fees are justified by the costs of providing the relevant services.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established