Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd (corrigendum 9 February 2009)

(2009) 253 ALR 263; [2009] FCA 49

Federal Court of Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

1. Administrative Law
2. › Administrative Appeals Tribunal
3. › Adequacy of reasons
4. › Obligation under s 43(2) AAT Act
5. › Whether reasons must sufficiently expose reasoning process to permit appeal on question of law under s 44
6. › Whether failure to explain path from adverse findings to favourable conclusion renders reasons inadequate
7. › Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 43(2), 43(2B), 44
1. Administrative Law
2. › Administrative Appeals Tribunal
3. › Appeal on question of law
4. › Whether failure to provide adequate reasons is error of law or distinct question of law
5. › Distinction between error of law in decision and question of law about Tribunal's processes
6. › Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 44(1)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Administrative Appeals Tribunal
3. › Findings on material questions of fact
4. › Whether s 43(2B) requires Tribunal to make findings it ought to have made or only to state findings actually made
5. › Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), s 43(2B)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Administrative Appeals Tribunal
3. › Remedies
4. › Appropriate order where reasons inadequate but decision not necessarily wrong
5. › Whether statement of reasons should be set aside with order to provide fresh reasons
6. › Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), ss 43(2), 43AA(3)(b), 44(4)

The adequacy of the Tribunal's reasons under s 43(2) of the AAT Act is a 'question of law' within the meaning of s 44(1), reviewable on appeal, even if a failure to provide adequate reasons is not an 'error of law' in the Tribunal's decision itself — every error of law corresponds with a question of law but the converse is not true.
To be adequate for the purposes of s 43(2), the Tribunal's reasons must sufficiently expose the reasoning process to permit the disappointed party to craft a question of law within the meaning of s 44; where the Tribunal's factual findings are adverse but its conclusion is favourable, the reasons must explain the path between those distant points.
Where the Tribunal's reasons are inadequate, the appropriate remedy is to set aside the statement of reasons and order the Tribunal to provide fresh reasons, leaving the Tribunal's decision in place — the decision may then be varied under s 43AA(3)(b) if the new reasons are inconsistent with it.