Ansett Transport Industries Ltd v Morris, P.F. & Anor. [1988] FCA 319

Ansett Transport Industries Ltd v Morris, P.F. & Anor. [1988] FCA 319

The term 'competitive route' as used in s.12 of the Airlines Equipment Act 1958 cannot be construed to include, for traffic estimation purposes, traffic over non-competitive routes between the same endpoints; the Minister erred in law by including such traffic in the capacity determination as this does not accord with any reasonable construction of s.12(1) as it presently stands.

Parties
Appellant: Ansett Transport Industries Limited; First Respondent: Peter Frederick Morris; Second Respondent: Australian National Airlines Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 June 1988
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appellate
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Statutory Interpretation, Airline Capacity Determination, Administrative Review
Aviation Law Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Airline Capacity Determination Administrative Review

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ansett Transport Industries Limited

Appellant

Peter Frederick Morris

First Respondent

Australian National Airlines Commission

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appellate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister, in determining maximum permitted aircraft capacity on competitive routes under s.12 of the Airlines Equipment Act 1958, could include estimates of traffic travelled over non-competitive routes between points served by competitive routes
  2. 2 Proper construction of 'competitive route' under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The term 'competitive route' as used in s.12 of the Airlines Equipment Act 1958 cannot be construed to include, for traffic estimation purposes, traffic over non-competitive routes between the same endpoints; the Minister erred in law by including such traffic in the capacity determination as this does not accord with any reasonable construction of s.12(1) as it presently stands.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • Liberty to the parties to apply as to the form of declaration.