I imagine you are referring to the tactics of Butson and Polar?
The case history is here:
AustLII Results - title(civil aviation safety authority )
It would appear that Butson and Polar have attempted to bring an action for damages against CASA and an action, including but not limited to, of misfeasance against various CASA officers.
There are questions of jurisdiction and questions of time elapsed since the AAT hearing from which these actions arise.
I fail to see where Polar has ever 'won'. Indeed, the last paragraph of the December 2011 hearing perhaps best summarises the action so far:
'The FASC ( amended statement of claim. i.e. what Butson and Polar rely on to support their various contentions. FF) pleads no cause of action other than those considered in these reasons. Accordingly, the whole of the FASC is struck out. There is nothing in the FASC, the evidence before the court, or the parties’ submissions that might discloses the existence of a cause of action beyond those already discussed. There is no proper basis to grant leave to re-plead. As Lindgren J said in White Industries (at 309 [47]: see [18] above), “[a] failure after ample opportunity to plead a reasonable cause of action may suggest that none exists and therefore that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success”. This is just such a case. Having regard to the history of the pleading, the evidence, and the parties’ submissions, I am persuaded that Polar and Mr Butson have no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding. Accordingly, I would give judgment for the respondents against the applicants pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court Act. I would make orders accordingly'.
Butson and Polar are now appealing this decision to the Full Bench of the Federal Court.
The case histories indicate that CASA has brought NO action against Butson or Polar Aviation other than the original enforcement action in 2004 that Butson et al applied to the AAT to be reviewed.
The AAT appears to have affirmed CASA's decision to cancel Butson's CP approval and to have set aside the decision to cancel Polar's AOC. The AOC was issued with conditions including, it seems, with a prohibition on some of Butson's activities.
Butson's contention in the Senator's letter that CASA is pursuing him is not supported by the case records. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Every time Butson and Polar have pursued CASA, they have been unsuccessful which has lead to them applying for leave to appeal, which up to now has been granted.
This appeal to the Full Bench is most probably the last throw of the dice for Butson and Polar.
Interesting that the Senator has tabled that letter into Hansard, humm...