Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Flight time limitations

Legal area

Court

6 Jul 2009

HONG KONG AIRCREW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

HONG KONG AIRCREW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL96/2008

The Director‑General lawfully possessed power to grant a flight‑specific variation/dispensation of the three‑pilot requirement under articles 95 and 98(11) of the Air Navigation (Hong Kong) Order 1995 and under the variation mechanisms in the approved FTL scheme; the decision to permit two pilots on Flight CX168 was within the range of reasonable outcomes given the decision‑maker's expertise and relevant factors (rest, acclimatisation, pilots' compliance with art.55 and latest estimated sector time), and therefore was not Wednesbury irrational, so the judicial review fails.
23 Mar 2007

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS FLIGHT ATTENDANTS UNION v. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION

Citation

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS FLIGHT ATTENDANTS UNION v. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV324/2005

Leave to amend and the new grounds were refused and the appeal dismissed because the new arguments were academic/overtaken by a later operative decision (CAD371 December 2005), lacked merit (no clear legitimate expectation or duty to consult given ECASS1's tentative nature and subsequent clarification), and raised factual/safety assertions unsupported by evidence; costs were ordered nisi against the Applicant.
25 Aug 2005

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. FLIGHT ATTENDANTS UNION

Citation

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. FLIGHT ATTENDANTS UNION
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL19/2005

CAD371 is a non-legislative policy document; the Director-General validly changed his policy in 2001, communicated that change to affected parties, and his December 2004 approval of Cathay Pacific's flight time scheme conformed to the changed policy and was lawfully exercised; accordingly the judicial review application is dismissed.
10 Apr 2003

MURRAY ALAN GARDNER v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD

Citation

MURRAY ALAN GARDNER v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3390/2001

Section 22 construed as a standstill clause: rostering must continue as it was being applied at the time COS-99 was entered into (i.e. the new AFTLS provisions together with three specific older Appendix D provisions in Sections 2.6.A, 2.6.B and 2.6.C). CPA is not entitled to make unilateral amendments to rostering pending further agreement with the Union or final resolution of HCMP No.1679/1999. RP-01's changes converting 4-man to 3-man crew, altering duty-swap entitlement, and modifying the 5-4-3 days-off rule were substantial; plaintiff entitled to injunction and declaration restraining un…

Hong Kong Case Law

HONG KONG AIRCREW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION AND ANOTHER

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS FLIGHT ATTENDANTS UNION v. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF CIVIL AVIATION

CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. FLIGHT ATTENDANTS UNION

MURRAY ALAN GARDNER v. CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS LTD