McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2006] FCA 1585

McWilliam v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2006] FCA 1585

The applicants had consistently pursued review of CASA’s decision and delay was partly due to CASA’s initiatives to resolve the matter. No substantial prejudice to CASA was shown and the applicants had a reasonable prospect of success in the substantive application. Accordingly, extension of time was proper and fair given circumstances and absence of adverse public interest.

Parties
First Applicant: Luke Maxwell McWilliam; Second Applicant: Skydive City Pty Ltd (ACN 101 558 892); Respondent: Civil Aviation Safety Authority
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Extension of Time to File for Review
Outcome
Extension of time granted; costs awarded to respondent
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Ultra Vires, Judicial Review, Civil Aviation Regulation
Administrative Law Extension of Time Ultra Vires Judicial Review Civil Aviation Regulation

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 4 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luke Maxwell McWilliam

First Applicant

Skydive City Pty Ltd (ACN 101 558 892)

Second Applicant

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Extension of Time to File for Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to apply for review should be granted under s 11(1)(c) Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether delay in application is satisfactorily explained
  3. 3 Potential prejudice to respondent or other parties

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants had consistently pursued review of CASA’s decision and delay was partly due to CASA’s initiatives to resolve the matter. No substantial prejudice to CASA was shown and the applicants had a reasonable prospect of success in the substantive application. Accordingly, extension of time was proper and fair given circumstances and absence of adverse public interest.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; costs awarded to respondent

Orders

  • Time for lodging application for review under AD(JR) Act extended to 3 November 2006
  • Application filed on 3 November 2006 deemed lodged pursuant to extension