2025/00090612
| Date | Party | Submission |
|---|---|---|
| 25/6/2025 | Appellant | Notice of Appeal (PDF, 1.6 MB) |
| 25/6/2025 | Appellant | Summary of Argument (PDF, 276.2 KB) |
| 24/7/2025 | Respondent | Submissions (PDF, 4.2 MB) |
| 27/8/2025 | Appellant | Submissions in Reply (PDF, 350.1 KB) |
| 15/9/2025 | Respondent | Supplementary Submissions (PDF, 678.9 KB) |
| 15/9/2025 | Appellant | Certification of Suitability for Publication (PDF, 350.8 KB) |
| 16/9/2025 | Respondent | Certification of Suitability for Publication (PDF, 165.8 KB) |
EVIDENCE – the applicant seeks to to appeal against an interlocutory judgment of Garling J on 20 December 2024. The dispute broadly relates to proceedings in negligence brought by a trainee pilot against the Australian International Aviation College for common law damages. A flying incident occurred which caused an aircraft carrying the Mr Zheng and an AIAC instructor to collide with the terrain. Mr Zheng argues that the AIAC's negligent acts and omissions derive from inadequate training of the flight instructor and inadequate flight handling procedures, alongside inappropriate controlling of the aircraft by the flight instructor. Mr Zheng served a report prepared by the AIAC and an expert report prepared by Mr Simpson, which relied upon the AIAC Report. AIAC objected to Mr Zheng's use of that report on the basis that it constituted and contained "restricted information" unable to be disclosed or relied upon pursuant to the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 (Cth). Justice Garling found that neither the AIAC Report nor the Simpson Report were or contained "restricted information" and that both reports were admissible. The applicant seeks leave to appeal from that decision on four grounds: (i) that his Honour misinterpreted the facts in finding that the "information in the report did not come from the ATSB"; (ii) that his Honour misconstrued the TSI Act in failing to find that the information was "restricted information" restricted from disclosure under s 60(3); (iii) his Honour wrongly placed weight on the assertions of the ATSB that were objected to and unable to be tested; (iv) his Honour took an erroneously restrictive construction of the Court's power to make orders under s 60(7) of the TSI Act.
Last updated: