What a crack up.
Another aspect of the Australian regulatory framework built on folklore.
A paragraph in an “advisory” publication is the source of a legally enforceable indemnity? Yeah right. I wouldn’t be putting my sheep station at risk on that paragraph.
Even if the original CAAP was actually a legally enforceable indemnity that survived the execution of the CAA, it seems to me that section 10 of the
Civil Aviation Legislation Amendment Act 1995 plonked liability for it in Airservices’ lap. The grant of an indemnity is hardly a regulatory function.
https://www.legislation.gov.au/Detai...5-9acc657a3fe2 (And remember in whose lap the TAAATS procurement mess created by the CAA was plonked: There’s a reason the case was called Hughes Aircraft Systems International v Airservices Australia...)
And the CAAP has some not-so-fine print loopholes through which a bullock wagon could be driven.
Does anyone have any first-hand experience of receiving a cheque from CASA to discharge a claimed liability under the indemnity? It wouldn’t be surprising if CASA’s insurer charges CASA a premium to cover the risk that the indemnity is enforceable against CASA - insurance companies like taking money from people - but who has actually made a claim against CASA under the indemnity and been paid?