Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 6 February 2009 the applicant's appeal to this Court was allowed: Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 49. I accepted the submission that the reasons proffered by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal ("the Tribunal") were inadequate in the requisite sense. I set aside the statement of reasons issued by the Tribunal and directed it to provide reasons which were adequate. I declined the applicant's invitation to set aside the whole of the Tribunal's decision and to permit a fresh hearing of the matter before a differently constituted Tribunal. I also did not accept the applicant's submission that the decision of the Tribunal revealed additional errors of law. Specifically I rejected the applicant's submission that it was beyond the power of the Tribunal to impose certain conditions on the respondent's licence. 2 The applicant had also contended that the Tribunal had taken into account irrelevant considerations and had asked itself the wrong question. It was not possible to deal with those submissions because the reasons of the Tribunal were not sufficiently adequate to determine their correctness. 3 It will be seen, therefore, that the principal submission advanced by the applicant was accepted; that a legal argument advanced by it was rejected; and that the remaining issues could not be determined because of the inadequacy of the Tribunal's reasons. 4 The respondent submits that the appropriate order is that the applicant pay its costs of the appeal. I reject that submission. The applicant was successful even if its triumph was not total. Parts of the case were undecided because of the inability to assess the arguments in light of the quality of the reasons provided by the Tribunal. Where the appeal only took one day and where the applicant succeeded in its primary argument I do not consider there to be special circumstances warranting a departure from the ordinary position that the successful party is entitled to its costs: Ruddock v Vadarlis (No 2) (2001) 115 FCR 229 at 234-235 [11] per Black CJ and French J. In any event, most of the debate before the Court was concerned with the adequacy of the Tribunal's reasons which, as I have mentioned, was an issue upon which the applicant was successful. 5 In its written submissions the applicant submitted that the appropriate order was that costs should follow the event. I agree. The appropriate order is that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the appeal. 6 The inadequacy of the Tribunal's reasons was, however, disconnected from any default on the part of the respondent. Section 6 of the Federal Proceedings (Costs) Act 1981 (Cth) provides: Costs certificates for respondents - Federal appeals