2. The question of whether the proceedings should be dismissed under s 97 involves identifying the decision for which review is sought and whether the Tribunal is authorised to review the decision in question.

1. The Tribunal hearing occurred by telephone on 18 August 2025. The applicant appeared for himself. The respondent was represented by Mr Carter, solicitor.
2. The parties made oral submissions. These submissions included the applicant reading from further written submissions entitled "Final Oral Submission - Interlocutory Hearing (Jurisdiction) (Final Oral Submissions)". The Tribunal requested a copy of the written document which was subsequently provided.
3. During the course of the hearing, the Tribunal noted that it had not been provided with a copy of the authorisation application nor was it provided with a document dated 6 March 2025 from Mr Smith, the representative of the respondent, by which the respondent purported to deal with the authorisation application, or at least part thereof. Again, the Tribunal requested these documents which were provided after the hearing.

1. In his written submissions dated 11 August 2025, the applicant referred to the Tribunal's jurisdiction under s 25(5) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (AAT Act) and to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The applicant submitted the Tribunal had jurisdiction "to review a constructive refusal by the [respondent] to decide the applicant's Level 2 and Level 4 Maintenance Authority applications, lodged on 13 September 2024".
2. I note that the AAT Act was repealed on 14 October 2024 and, from this date, this Tribunal became authorised to determine any review application made under the Regulation, not the AAT. The present review application was made after 14 October 2024 under the ART Act. However, nothing turns on the incorrect reference to the AAT or to s 25(2) of the AAT Act, an equivalent provision being found in s 16 of the ART Act.
3. During oral submissions, there were discussions concerning the legislative regime for seeking review of a decision made by RAA concerning an application for an authorisation. In this regard, the Regulation provides for the following review applications to be made:

(a) an internal review by RAA of an original decision which RAA might make concerning an application for an authorisation (reg 149.605). The powers on internal review and the time for their exercise is found in reg 149.605(3) and (4). The decision made on internal review is called an "internal review decision"[1]; > > (b) a review of an internal review decision by the respondent (reg 149.610). The powers on review are found in reg 149.630. I will refer to a decision made by the respondent under this provision as a "decision of CASA"; and > > (c) a review of a decision of CASA by the Tribunal (reg 201.004). The powers on review are found in s 105 of the ART Act.

4. In addition, there was discussion about regulation 149.495 found in Subpart 149.H - Authorisations and enforcement of the Regulation.
5. It was in respect of a decision under reg 149.495 that the constructive refusal alleged by the applicant was said to arise. The applicant's argument can be stated briefly.
6. The applicant says that reg 149.495 gives the respondent power to do the things specified therein. The failure to do so on request by the applicant is a decision that is reviewable by the Tribunal. The contention is that reg 149.495 applies broadly to the application process for an authorisation, even if the authorisation is not or has not been issued. In this regard, the applicant says there is a general power in reg 149.495(1) to permit the respondent to regulate the conduct of RAA in dealing with applications and a duty to exercise this power.
7. In making this submission, the applicant said he was not seeking review by the Tribunal of a decision made by CASA under reg 149.630 as permitted by reg 201.004 of the Regulation and Item 29 of Table 201.004 Reviewable decisions.
8. This position was also made clear in the Final Oral Submissions, where, referring to the respondent's submissions, the applicant said:

CASA argues I didn't follow CASR 149.605 to 149.630, requiring an RAAus internal review and Form 149 (paragraphs 15-20), and claims they didn't receive my document (paragraph 21). I counter, that Annexure A with email receipts, proves CASA receive my complaint, and A-R-T Act section THREE's fairness supports my intent in Annexure's E, G and I. CASA claims my application sites 18 April 2025 decision with no evidence. The 18 April 2025 date in my application reflects the deadline I said in my 10 April 2025 email for CASA to respond, expired without action, but my reviews seeks CASA's collective failure to act - from Annexure A's 14 March 2025 complaint to Annexure B's 30 May 2025 refusal - reviewable under A-R-T Act sections 12 and 17 per [re Lobo] [2011] AATA 705./ CASA's oversight powers under CASA's 149.495 and 11.260, and duties under Civil Aviation Act 1988 section 9, oblige them to act. Their silence violates their model litigant duties.

9. That is, the applicant submitted that the respondent's "oversight powers" under reg 149.495 coupled with its functions found in s 9 of the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) required it to act and its failure to do so constituted a reviewable decision for the purpose of the ART Act.
10. I note in passing that reg 11.260 relates gives power of the Director of CASA to delegate certain of his powers to others. Regulation 11.260 does not appear relevant to the question of whether there has been a failure of a type identified by the applicant in connection with reg 149.495 or whether there is a reviewable decision made by the respondent.

17 Who can apply > > (1) A person whose interests are affected by a reviewable decision may apply to the Tribunal for review of the decision. > > Note 1: For which decisions are reviewable decisions, see section 12.

2. A "reviewable decision is defined in s 12(1) of the ART Act as follows:

12 Reviewable decisions > > (1) A decision is a reviewable decision if an Act or a legislative instrument provides for an application to be made to the Tribunal for review of the decision. > > Note: To find out whether a decision is a reviewable decision, start by looking at the Act or legislative instrument under which the decision is made.

3. Regulation 201.004 authorises an application to be made to the Tribunal in respect of decisions made under the Regulation identified in Table 201.004 Reviewable decisions (Table). Relevantly reg 201.004 provides:

201.004 Review of decisions > > (1) In this regulation: > > authorisation: see regulation 11.015. > > Decisions made by CASA > > (2) An application may be made to the Administrative Review Tribunal for the review of a decision of CASA mentioned in table 201.004. > > Table 201.004 Reviewable decisions

under a provision of these Regulations:

(a) refusing to grant or issue an authorisation; or

(b) cancelling or suspending an authorisation otherwise than on the application of the authorisation-holder; or

(c) varying an authorisation otherwise than on the application of the authorisation-holder; or

(d) refusing to vary an authorisation

under regulation 149.495 varying, suspending or cancelling an authorisation issued by an ASAO

under regulation 149.630 affirming, varying, setting aside or remitting an internal review decision of an ASAO

1. Regulation 11.015 defines authorisation as follows:

authorisation means: > > (a) a civil aviation authorisation other than: > > (i) an AOC; or > > (ii) a delegation; or > > (iii) the appointment of an authorised person; or (iv) an authorisation issued by an ASAO; or > > (b) an approval or qualification of a document or thing under these Regulations, other than a material, part, process or appliance to which regulation 21.305A applies; or > > (c) a certificate capable of being granted to a person under these Regulation.

2. The following matters do not appear to be in dispute:

(a) the authorisation application made on 13 September 2024 was an application for authorisations within the meaning of the Regulation; > > (b) the March Decision constituted a refusal to grant the authorisation application; > > (c) the refusal was made by RAA as an Approved Self-administering Aviation Organisation (ASAO) registered under Part 149 of the Regulation.

3. The respondent's position is that the March decision was a decision to refuse the issue of an authorisation by an ASAO to which Subpart 149.K - Review of ASAO decisions (Subpart 149K) of the Regulation applies. The respondent says no valid application was made by the applicant for internal review as permitted by Part 149. Otherwise, the respondent submits "it has no jurisdiction to do the things the applicant seeks and declines to do them".[2]
4. Finally, the respondent notes the applicant is not precluded from making a further application to RAA "for the maintenance privileges that he seeks".[3]
5. In my opinion, Subpart 149K permits:

(a) an application for internal review of the March Decision by RAA under reg 149.605; and > > (b) if the applicant is dissatisfied with the internal review decision, an application for review by the respondent of the internal review decision as permitted by reg 149.610.

6. Where a valid application for review is made to the respondent under reg 149.610, reg 149.630(2) provides the respondent:

... must make a decision: > > (a) affirming the internal review decision; or > > (b) varying the internal review decision; or > > (c) setting the internal review decision aside and substituting a new decision; or > > (d) setting the internal review decision aside and remitting the matter to the ASAO for reconsideration in accordance with any directions or recommendations of CASA.

7. Where a decision is made under reg 149.630(2), an application for review may be made to the Tribunal as permitted by reg 201.004(2): see item 29 of the Table.
8. Absent a valid application for internal review by RAA as permitted by Subpart 149.K, there can be no internal review decision under reg 149.605. Consequently, there can be no application for review of an internal review decision by the respondent under reg 149.610 and no decision of the respondent under reg 149.630(2).
9. Absent a decision of the respondent under reg 149.630(2), there can be no application to the Tribunal of a refusal to issue an authorisation as there is no Reviewable decision for the purpose of item 29 of the Table.
10. The applicant did not assert he had made an application for internal review as permitted by Subpart 149.K. This seems clear from the terms of the Complaint which relates to the applicant's dissatisfaction with the March Decision and the date it was made, namely 8 days after the March Decision. There is no evidence an internal review application was otherwise made to RAA prior to the applicant filing his application with the Tribunal on 23 April 2025.
11. Consequently, I am satisfied there is no Reviewable decision for the purpose of item 29 of the Table.
12. However, the applicant's submitted that there was, in effect, a refusal to take action following the Complaint. The applicant submitted that the respondent breached its obligations under reg 149.495 and its failure to respond by 18 April 2025 is a decision not to do what was requested.
13. The applicant contended this constituted a reviewable decision for the purpose of the ART Act.
14. As is apparent from s 17 of the ART Act, a "reviewable decision" is a decision that "an Act or a legislative instrument provides for an application to be made to the Tribunal for review of the decision". In this case, the Civil Aviation Act and the Regulation are, respectively, the relevant "Act" or "legislative instrument" in which must be found a provision permitting an application to be made to the Tribunal. The Art Act does not otherwise authorise the Tribunal to review any decision that might be made by the respondent.
15. Regulation 149.495 provides:

149.495 Variation, suspension and cancellation of authorisations issued by ASAOs > > (1) CASA may exercise the powers in subregulation (2): > > (a) if an ASAO does not comply with a direction under regulation 149.490 within 20 days; or > > (b) on written request of an ASAO; or > > (c) on CASA's own initiative; > > if CASA is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation to do so. > > (2) CASA may, by written notice given to the holder of an authorisation issued by an ASAO, vary, suspend or cancel the authorisation. > > (3) Before making a decision under subregulation (2), CASA must: > > (a) give the holder of the authorisation a notice setting out the reasons why CASA is considering making the decision; and > > (b) allow the holder of the authorisation to show cause, within such reasonable time as CASA specifies in the notice, why CASA should not make the decision. > > (4) A variation or suspension has effect for the period specified in the notice, unless earlier revoked by CASA. > > (5) A cancellation takes effect on the day specified in the notice. > > (6) If CASA varies, suspends or cancels an authorisation issued by an ASAO, CASA must notify the ASAO in writing of the variation, suspension or cancellation as soon as practicable. > > (7) The suspension of an authorisation issued by an ASAO under this regulation does not prevent the revocation of the authorisation by the ASAO or by CASA.

16. A decision made under this regulation by the respondent is a reviewable decision within the meaning of s 17(1) of the ART Act.[4]
17. As stated in the heading, reg 149.495 operates in respect of "authorisations issued by ASAOs". As provided in re 149.495(1), the exercise of power under reg 149.495 requires the respondent to be "satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the safety of air navigation to do so".
18. The only decision that can be made under reg 149.495 is that permitted by reg 149.495(2), namely to "vary, suspend or cancel the authorisation" given to the holder of that authorisation.
19. Self-evidently, reg 149.495 is concerned with the continuation (and if so on what terms) of an authorisation that has been issued to a holder.
20. My view is supported by the reference in reg 149.495(1)(a) to reg 149.490 and the powers of the respondent to take direct action against the holder of an authorisation where an ASAO fails to exercise enforcement powers against the holder when directed to do so.
21. As such, it is not a regulation concerned with the conduct of the ASAO, in this case the respondent, nor is it a regulation concerned with taking disciplinary action against an ASAO. It does not authorise the making of a decision directing an ASAO to act in a particular manner or to issue an authorisation. To the contrary, by its terms the regulation contemplates that an authorisation has been issued by an ASAO,[5] any decision being directed to the holder of the authorisation whose rights might be affected by reason of any decision to vary, suspend or cancel an authorisation held.
22. Finally, for the purpose of an application to the Tribunal, it is only a decision "varying, suspending or cancelling an authorisation" which is a reviewable decision under item 28 of the Table.
23. It follows that the Complaint and any decision of the respondent to take action in relation to the Complaint or any failure to take action which itself might be a decision, is not a reviewable decision made under reg 149.495 of the Regulation or to which that regulation applies. Therefore, it is not a reviewable decision for the purpose of item 28 of the Table.
24. The applicant has not identified any other provision of the Regulation which might apply to the present circumstances and constitute a reviewable decision of a type identified in the Table to reg 201.004.
25. Therefore, I am satisfied that there is no reviewable decision and the application must be dismissed under s 97 of the ART Act.

1. The application is dismissed pursuant to s 97 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 as there is no reviewable decision.

[2] Respondent's submissions dated 14 August 2025 paragraphs 23-25

[3] Respondent's submissions dated 14 August 2025 paragraph 26