NAS - The lawyers are now involved!

[bonez]

good source this am suggests that a well known entity has instituted legal proceedings against airservices.

my source says it is an injunction to prevent the distribution of documents (charts) with frequency and boundary info thereon.

anyone know more?

dear me! what next?

:yuk: :yuk:

[The Voice]

whatever for?

The over-riding consideration of seeking the relief in equity of any injuction is public interest ..

is it IN the public interest to with-hold those charts which is considered in personal or proprietary property of an individual person type cases

or

is it OF public interest which is considered in defamation type cases

interesting either way ...

[compressor stall]

I thought these legal proceedings had been underway for a while from that mob, or is it a new case?

[Capt Claret]

Geeez Voice, any one would think you were studying law or summat. :}

[The Voice]

Hey Clarrie ... sssshhhhhh ....

not for much longer :E

[Bendo]

G'day Voice,

What has equity to do with it?

I am not a lawyer but I was under the impression that Equity was based more on "good conscience" than "public interest".:8

...or is Equity the division of the High Court that a matter such as this would be heard in?

(signed)
Another victim of the modern education system:ouch:

[The Voice]

Bendo ..

Equity is actually about fairness .. and plugs up the holes left in the common law .. that is it supplements, controls and corrects the common law..

an equitable remedy of injunction is a device to restrain continuing breaches of confidence ..

so applying that principal .. the person(s) or company that is seeking the injunction is wanting to stop the distribution of the new charts to stall something else from happening, most likely to them, as the charts may cause the disclosure of a confidence.

Now what that would be, could be anything but you can rest assured whatever it is, it is most likely detrimental to that person, or to that company.

The scope of any injunction is determined by the scope of the obligation of the confidence and the potential detriment suffered by such disclosure of the information.

Equity courts are courts in their own right.. and are a division of the Supreme Court. When you refer to the High Court .. do you mean the High Court as in, of Australia, or the High Court, as in a higher court, such as the Supreme Court?

handing over

[Disco Stu]

What is the world coming to, firstly Bendo does a post and then the Voice posts in a foreign language.

NAS - The lawyers are now involved!

Depending on ones view, NAS was either already stuffed, if not then it certainly will be if the lawyers are involved.

Oh woe is me

Disco Stu:ok:

[The Voice]

hey Disco .. how's that delectable woman of yours?

and I totally agree with you .. nothing like a little legal jousting to get the blood pumping ... and the wallet fatter! :E

[Dale Harris]

Lawyers........ :rolleyes: :yuk:

[MoFo]

Q. What do you call 100 Lawyers on the bottom of the ocean?

A. A good start?

Answer supplied by Big W. :8

It's great fun being a Woomera. Sometimes:confused: :{ :p

[NAMPS]

Sorry The Voices, I don't mean to pick on you but...

an equitable remedy of injunction is a device to restrain continuing breaches of confidence ..

An injunction does more than just restrain continuing breaches of confidence eg Mareva injunctions, Anton Pillar orders, quia timet injunctions.

An injunction will only be awarded where damages are an inadequate remedy.

so applying that principal .. the person(s) or company that is seeking the injunction is wanting to stop the distribution of the new charts to stall something else from happening, most likely to them, as the charts may cause the disclosure of a confidence.

How does distribution of charts result in a breach of confidence? The only type of "confidence" that I'm aware of that a Court will make an order restraining the disclosure of confidence is commercially sensitive information - and only in the case where damages are inadequate.

The scope of any injunction is determined by the scope of the obligation of the confidence and the potential detriment suffered by such disclosure of the information.

Incorrect. An injunction restrains a person from doing a specified act or requires the performance of a specified act. No more no less.

Equity courts are courts in their own right.. and are a division of the Supreme Court.

Incorrect. Refer to the Judicature Act 1873 (UK), Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) (and various other State Acts).

I'm not sure on basis upon which anyone could prevent the distribution of charts.

Anyone with any ideas?

Litigation pays my bills and keeps me flying...bring it on! :}

[Pinky the pilot]

Oi Woomera,
What's the difference to a Lawyer from a European Carp?

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.


One is a bottom dwelling, muck raking scum sucker and the other is a fish!

Stop that - before a Woomera gets banned from PPRuNe! :ugh:

Woomera

[The Voice]

My Dear NAMPS,

Firstly, my nic is singular .. no S on the end if you please ..

Yes there are the Anton Pillar, Mareeva and quia timet injunctions but not every person is into the technicalities of the law.

I don't think anyone is particularly slipping in thru' a back door somewhere, nor about to make off with any assets prior to a decision being made on another matter. I'm not too sure that the publication of the ammended charts could be seen as unlawful interference in the exercising of the Pl. rights prior to any actual interference of them, so I don't think the quia timet injunction is up for discussion either.

With reference to the breach of confidence, is it not prudent to consider that with the re-publishing of the charts with the information back where it should be, an argument could be proffered that public interest extends to the protection of the community from either a dangerous product and or a dangerous practice? Therefore, a door is opened for some bright young thing to bring an action against the publisher of the charts without that information.

Yes, an injunction prevents something from happening, but that is exactly what I said. It can't be granted for anything to broad, hence the scope of it is only fitting to the scope of the 'breach'.

Broadly speaking .. the judges of the Supreme court administer both common law and equity matters concurrently. I gather you must be referring to the fusion debate which isn't settled, even after all this time .. and interesting to note that NSW had its judicature legislation advanced back to 1873 according to one CJ of NSW.

In any case ... we could argue this back and forth.

Fact one, we have no facts to properly debate this.

Fact two, this aint quite the forum to debate this.

Fact three, the law isn't cut and dried and depends on who presents the best agrument on the day as to how it affects the outcomes of the future ..

[NAMPS]

Thank you for your response The Voice. I apologise for the typo.


With reference to the breach of confidence, is it not prudent to consider that with the re-publishing of the charts with the information back where it should be, an argument could be proffered that public interest extends to the protection of the community from either a dangerous product and or a dangerous practice? Therefore, a door is opened for some bright young thing to bring an action against the publisher of the charts without that information.

There is no connection between information that could be placed on a chart and information that could be classified as "commercially sensitive" (which is the type of information which is protected see Mooregate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (No. 2) (1984) 156 CLR 414 at 437ff). An injunction sought on this basis for the reasons you are advancing would fail.

The type of relief that protects against the threat of damage is the quia timet injunction (see Carter v Murray [1981] 2 NSWLR 77). Perhaps this is more appropriate.

I gather you must be referring to the fusion debate which isn't settled, even after all this time .. and interesting to note that NSW had its judicature legislation advanced back to 1873 according to one CJ of NSW.

I was clarifying that there is no separate "equity" and "common law" courts anymore.

In any case ... we could argue this back and forth.

Agreed.

Fact one, we have no facts to properly debate this.

Does anyone have the facts?

I seem to recall that some sports aviation group threatened legal proceedings (nothing specified) on the basis that a lot of effort went in to training members to comply with NAS requirements. They obviously felt aggrieved that by changing NAS, they p1ssed all that effort up the wall and are seeking redress.

Fact two, this aint quite the forum to debate this.

I don't recall starting this. In any event, having regard to the title of the thread...

Fact three, the law isn't cut and dried and depends on who presents the best agrument on the day as to how it affects the outcomes of the future ..

Depends on what jurisdiction. Your statement is definately true in criminal matters in the Local Court. I recall being able to advise clients on what they would get just by knowing who was hearing the matter.

Supreme Court commercial practise is based more on precedent and legal principle - you are stuck with the factual circumstances and the "bullsh1t baffles brains" technique does not work with very intelligent judges and opposition.

Happy Flying;)

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

How do you save a lawyer from drowning?

Take your foot off his head (but why would you)

[Duck N Weave]

There seems to be a few legal eagles cruising out there ... is it possible to mount a class action by Pilots, ATC's and other interested parties to seek a remedy to NAS itself?
Could a class action achieve anything? What other remedies are there to address the apparent failure/negligence of the Minister and NASIG in the implementation of NAS? Are Dick Smiths' comments and assertions misrepresentative enough to be brought to account at law?

Help me dream at least ............

[NAMPS]

Duck N Weave - We all know NAS is less safe than pre 27 Nov 03 airspace, but that alone is not enough to mount an action.

I note that Boyd, in support of legal action, is relying on an argument that ASA's "decision to amend the NAS was beyond its power".

If that is the case, perhaps the implementation of NAS by ASA in the first place was beyond its power too!! :p

Think I might look into it :8