Angel Flight Australia v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2020] FCA 1316

Angel Flight Australia v Civil Aviation Safety Authority [2020] FCA 1316

The applicants were not released from the implied undertaking because they did not establish that the Documents in Issue were likely to contribute to achieving justice in VID574 of 2020. The documents predated the statutory notices challenged in VID574 of 2020 by almost two years, were discovered in VID222 of 2019, and their relevance to the later proceeding was not shown. The breach of the implied undertaking was not merely technical, was not excused by urgency, there was no commonality of parties as asserted, and no special circumstances were identified to justify relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications to Be Released From the Implied Undertaking Applying to Documents Discovered in an Earlier Proceeding / Reasons for Judgment and Orders Dismissing the Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
The applicants' interlocutory applications in VID 222 of 2019 and VID 574 of 2020 were dismissed, with costs on the standard basis.
Legal Topics
['implied Undertaking' 'discovery' 'use of Discovered Documents in Later Proceeding' 'federal Court Rules 2011 (cth), R 20.03' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights'] ['implied Undertaking' 'discovery' 'use of Discovered Documents in Later Proceeding' 'federal Court Rules 2011 (cth), R 20.03' 'costs']

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

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Applications to Be Released From the Implied Undertaking Applying to Documents Discovered in an Earlier Proceeding / Reasons for Judgment and Orders Dismissing the Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be released from the implied undertaking in respect of documents disclosed by the respondent by way of discovery in proceeding VID222 of 2019.' 'Whether CASA should obtain, as an alternate basis under r 20.03(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), an order that the implied undertaking continue to apply to the Documents in Issue.' "Whether the applicants' breach of the implied undertaking was technical or excused by urgency." 'Whether costs should be ordered on an indemnity basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were not released from the implied undertaking because they did not establish that the Documents in Issue were likely to contribute to achieving justice in VID574 of 2020. The documents predated the statutory notices challenged in VID574 of 2020 by almost two years, were discovered in VID222 of 2019, and their relevance to the later proceeding was not shown. The breach of the implied undertaking was not merely technical, was not excused by urgency, there was no commonality of parties as asserted, and no special circumstances were identified to justify relief.

Court Disposition

The applicants' interlocutory applications in VID 222 of 2019 and VID 574 of 2020 were dismissed, with costs on the standard basis.

Orders

  • ["The Applicants' interlocutory applications in VID 222 of 2019 and VID 574 of 2020, to be released from the implied undertaking, filed on 4 September 2020, be dismissed." "The Applicants pay the Respondent's costs of and incidental to those interlocutory applications." 'The affidavit of Kevin Bartlett dated 26...