Work Health Authority v Outback Ballooning Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 2

Work Health Authority v Outback Ballooning Pty Ltd [2019] HCA 2

The Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) and associated Commonwealth civil aviation laws are designed to operate within the framework of other State, Territory, and Commonwealth laws and do not evince an intention to operate exclusively with respect to all aspects of safety, including embarkation of passengers. Sections 28BE(5) and 98(7) of the Civil Aviation Act confirm that duties imposed by other laws are not excluded unless there is direct conflict, and the NT WHS Act is not inconsistent as it can operate concurrently. Accordingly, the orders of the Court of Appeal should be set aside, and the appeal allowed.

Parties
Appellant: Work Health Authority; Respondent: Outback Ballooning Pty Ltd; Intervener: Attorney-General of the Commonwealth; Intervener: Attorney-General of the State of Queensland; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Victoria; Intervener: Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia; Respondent: Second Respondent
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment and Orders of High Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Inconsistency Between Commonwealth and Territory Laws, Exclusive Operation of Commonwealth Legislation, Civil Aviation Regulation, Work Health and Safety Duties, Interpretation of S 109 Constitution, Implied Exclusivity, Concurrent Application of Laws
Constitutional Law Aviation Law Work Health and Safety Law Inconsistency Between Commonwealth and Territory Laws Exclusive Operation of Commonwealth Legislation Civil Aviation Regulation Work Health and Safety Duties Interpretation of S 109 Constitution +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Work Health Authority

Appellant

Outback Ballooning Pty Ltd

Respondent

Attorney-General of the Commonwealth

Intervener

Attorney-General of the State of Queensland

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Tasmania

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Victoria

Intervener

Attorney-General for the State of Western Australia

Intervener

Second Respondent

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment and Orders of High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commonwealth civil aviation law operates exclusively to regulate safety in air navigation, including embarkation of passengers
  2. 2 Whether the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT) is inconsistent with the Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether s 19(2) of the NT WHS Act can operate concurrently with Commonwealth aviation law

Ratio Decidendi

The Civil Aviation Act 1988 (Cth) and associated Commonwealth civil aviation laws are designed to operate within the framework of other State, Territory, and Commonwealth laws and do not evince an intention to operate exclusively with respect to all aspects of safety, including embarkation of passengers. Sections 28BE(5) and 98(7) of the Civil Aviation Act confirm that duties imposed by other laws are not excluded unless there is direct conflict, and the NT WHS Act is not inconsistent as it can operate concurrently. Accordingly, the orders of the Court of Appeal should be set aside, and the appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Set aside the orders made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory dated 19 October 2017 and 28 March 2018. In their place, order that the appeal to that Court be dismissed with costs.