Posted by Onslope on the GA meeting thread. Food for Barrier thought - maybe.
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL)
No N2000/1697 GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION )
Re SYDNEY HARBOUR SEAPLANES PTY LIMITED
Applicant
And CIVIL AVIATION SAFETY AUTHORITY
Respondent
39. In reaching these conclusions about the scope of its review the Tribunal also wishes to express its sense of disquiet and frustration about the way in which it has been asked to determine this matter. It is quite remarkable that the respondent's own legal advisers seem to have been so ill-informed about the status of the regulatory framework applying to the issue of the AOC for the applicant that as late as 15 January 2001, when the respondent filed its detailed written submissions, no mention was made of Civil Aviation Amendment Order (No.20) 2000. It would seem that this particular CAO was only discovered through the diligence of the applicant's legal advisers - a discovery which as has been noted was only drawn to the attention of the Tribunal on 18 January 2000 after all of the evidence had been heard and in the course of closing oral submissions.
The Tribunal has no doubt that the applicant must have been prejudiced in the way in which it presented its case by these actions of the respondent. They are not the actions of a model litigant, nor those of a regulatory body which appears well-informed concerning the way in which its own senior officials exercise their very extensive delegated powers.
8 February 2001