The Civil Aviation Authority of Fiji has been ordered by the Supreme Court to pay Joyce Aviation Group managing director Tim Joyce $10,000 in court costs.
In the ruling, the Supreme Court also granted Mr Joyce leave to appeal a sentence by the Nadi Magistrate’s Court in 2015 when he pleaded guilty to operating 29 flights on fixed winged aircraft when his licence was yet to be renewed by CAAF.
Mr Joyce was ordered by the Nadi Magistrate’s Court to pay $29,000 as a penalty.
A High Court challenge of CAAF’s decision by Mr Joyce in December, 2017, was dismissed citing the validity of Section 12F of the Civil Aviation Authority of Fiji Act which provides a formal mechanism for individuals or entities aggrieved by the decisions of the Authority to appeal.
In response, the Joyce Aviation Group managing director appeal the judgment before the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal, however, ruled that only the judicial directions were in issue in the appeal and, in particular that Mr Joyce was not challenging the order requiring reconsideration or the conclusion that Section 12F of the CAAF Act was valid.
It allowed Mr Joyce’s appeal but only to the extent of setting aside the judicial directions.
Before, the Supreme Court, Mr Joyce challenged the Court of Appeal decision on the basis that it “misunderstood the arguments” from the pilot.
“I am satisfied that the Court of Appeal misunderstood the case presented by counsel for Mr Joyce and for this reason did not address what I accept were his argument that the order requiring reconsideration be set-aside and his contention that Section 12F of the Civil Aviation Authority of Fiji Act is invalid,” the Supreme Court judgment said.
“Mr Joyce was entitled to have the arguments that were presented on his behalf to the Court of Appeal properly addressed by that court.
“That they were not addressed means that his proposed appeal involves a “matter that is … of substantial general interest to the administration of civil justice” for the purposes of s 7(3)(c) of the Supreme Court Act 1998.
“I would therefore grant leave to appeal.”
