From a bar-room lawyer, I would argue this guy still has a case - but only if I've got my facts right - but not just against Jet*.
Aerocat and others, I don't disagree that he paid for the endorsement and that's what he got but you've got to look at the circumstances of why he did.
1. He had to, to get the job. Fine - on it's own probably as the judge decreed.
2. He had to use Jetstar's choice of provider (I assume) - this is where things should start to swing in his favour.
3. Jetstar subjected him to testing prior to offering him a job subject to...... If that testing was not aptitude based, that's not the pilots fault.
So, IMHO, there is still a case against Jet* and the training provider based on:
1. You put me up for something after checking me out. To then conclude that I was never going to make the grade points to flaws in your process and that I was led to believe something that you now concede was never right.
2. You forced me to use your training provider (and get CASA involved here!) and I can demonstrate (either contractually or anicdotally) that the standard of training was insufficient to prepare me for the position (not best practice in number of trainers, breaks)
3. You (the training organisation) passed me on the endorsement which I paid for as part of the recruitment process (presumably) without any warning that passing a line check might be problematic.
If it were I and I had buckets of money, I would try the following:
a) going for the training provider for not doing the job properly
b) going both the trainer and Jet* under the trade practices act for deceptive and misleading conduct - i.e. you selected me, told me to jump these hurdles which I did and then scrubbed me. The trade practices act is your friend here - it over-rides the conditions of any contracts and all that is required is to demonstrate a loss.
Ultimately, the AFAP should spend the money and publish a summary of this case as an ad in every Flight Safety magazine and on the front page of its website from now until infinity as a warning to those coming along.
I'm biased I know but an even worse scheme is the QL traineeship in it's current form - pay $18k for ground based training and we're not required to even necessarily start your endorsement training. That anyone signed up for that leaves me shaking my head...
UTR