C.A. 95/81

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand—­Between Air New Zealand Limited,
First Applicant, and Morrison Ritchie Davis, Second Applicant, and Ian
Harding Gemmell, Third Applicant, and Peter Thomas Mahon, First
Respondent, and the Attorney-General, Fourth Respondent, and New Zealand
Airline Pilots Association, Fifth Respondent, and the Attorney-General,
Sixth Respondent.

Coram

Woodhouse P.
Cooke J.
Richardson J.
McMullin J.
Somers J.

Hearing

5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 October 1981.

Counsel

L.W.  Brown Q.C. and R.J.  McGrane for first and second applicants.

D.A.R.  Williams and L.L.  Stevens for third applicant.

G.P.  Barton and R.S.  Chambers for first respondent.

C.J.  McGuire for fourth respondent (Civil Aviation Division)—­leave to withdraw.

A.F.  MacAlister and P.J.  Davison for fifth respondent.

W.D.  Baragwanath and G.M.  Harrison for sixth respondent.

Judgment

22nd December 1981.

Judgment of Cooke, Richardson and Somers JJ.

On 5 August 1981, for reasons then given, this Court ordered that these proceedings be removed as a whole from the High Court to this Court for hearing and determination.  They are proceedings, brought by way of application for judicial review, in which certain parts of the report of the Royal Commission on the Mount Erebus aircraft disaster are attacked.  In summary the applicants claim that these parts are contrary to law, in excess of jurisdiction and in breach of natural justice.

One of the reasons for ordering the removal was that it was important that the complaints be finally adjudicated on as soon as reasonably practicable.  We had in mind that the magnitude of the disaster—­257 lives were lost—­made it a national and indeed international tragedy, so the early resolution of any doubts as to the validity of the report was a matter of great public concern.  Also the report contained very severe criticism of certain senior officers of Air New Zealand.  Naturally this criticism must have been having damaging and continuing effects, as evidenced for instance by the resignation of the chief executive, so it was right that the airline and the individuals should have at a reasonably early date a definite decision, one way or the other, on whether their complaints were justified.

In the event the hearing in this Court was completed in less than six days.  We had envisaged that some further days might be required for cross-examination, as there were applications for leave to cross-examine the airline personnel and the Royal Commissioner himself on affidavits that they had made in the proceedings.  But ultimately the parties elected to have no cross-examination—­and it should be made clear that this was by agreement reached between the parties, not by decision of the Court.  With the benefit of the very full written and oral arguments submitted by counsel, the Court is now in a position to given judgment before the end of the year.