Polar Aviation Pty Ltd v Civil Aviation Safety Authority (no 4) [2011] FCA 1126
Judgement handed down today.
It should be on Austli tomorrow or soon thereafter.
For those who cannot wait:
'...consideration of elements of tort of unlawful interference with trade or business interests - elements not present in pleading - failure to adequately to particularise tort of misfeasance in public office - pleading embarrassing - pleading struck out - no leave to re-plead'
'...summary dismissal application pursuant to... applicable tests-where entirety of pleadings struck out - where ample opportunity to plead a reasonable cause of action - whether proceeding has no reasonable prospect of success - application dismissed'
I have merely supplied the catchwords to give you a flavour of the judgement which runs to 44 pages.
Butson is not permitted to bring a pleading (amended statement of claim) again. Cost awarded to CASA but in an amount yet to be determined (separate submissions).
And for those who 'wonder'; 'embarrassing' may very well apply to this ridiculous saga and the actions of Polar Aviation; however, the term has a specific meaning in the 'Federal Court Rules 1879' Cth.
Now I await all those who say that once again justice should not be searching for Proof when the allegations before it should be just taken on face value.
Or, conversely, this decision may very well be a continuation of the 'conspiracy' that dismissed Repacholi's action.
FF
In a nutshell, the court found that Mr Butson had produced no evidence in his (numerous) attempts to support an action of 'misfeasance in public office'. His pleading (the information he must lodge with the court and the defence such that the defence know exactly what they are accused of) was deficient. Most probably always was and remains so.