Plaintiff Opposes Licence Scheme for Entry Onto Airport Land
Sheridan v Australian Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd [2021] VSC 440 (28 July 2021)
Plaintiff who drove passengers to or from the airport, would have conflicts with Australian Pacific Airports (Melbourne) Pty Ltd (‘APAM’) for entering the airport with no Landside Driver Authority (‘LDA’). The Plaintiff alleges that the LDA scheme was unlawful and that APAM's agents committed torts against him for interfering with his business.
Facts:
Tony Sheridan, the first plaintiff, carried on business as a hire car driver through his company Accident By Design Pty Ltd, the second plaintiff. APAM, the first defendant, who operated Melbourne Airport at Tullamarine, required all owners of commercial vehicles wishing to operate at Melbourne Airport to obtain from it a Landside Vehicle Authority (‘LVA’), and all drivers of commercial vehicles wishing to operate at Melbourne Airport to obtain from it a LDA. Participants in the LDA scheme were entitled to use a special area of the carpark set aside for their use, which was closer to the terminals than the public car park, and they also received discounted parking rates.
Mr Sheridan took the view that APAM had no legal right to require that he obtain an LDA in order to operate his business from Melbourne Airport. He continued to carry out his business of driving passengers to, or collecting passengers from, the airport. This led to multiple instances of conflict. Mr Sheridan alleges that APAM, through its agents, committed a variety of torts against him. This includes false imprisonment, harassment, intimidation, intentional interference with trade and business, trespass against his vehicle, misfeasance in public office, misleading and deceptive conduct, and unconscionable conduct. He claims damages and seeks declaratory relief. For its part, APAM contends that it was lawfully entitled to require Mr Sheridan that he obtain an LDA because, as lessee of land at the airport, it was entitled to impose conditions upon the entry of people onto that land.
Issue:
Whether or not licence scheme introduced by first defendant for entry onto airport land unlawful.
Applicable law:
Airports (Control of On-Airport Activities) Regulations 1997 (Cth) - gives an ‘authorised person’ the power to require a hire car driver to produce a licence from the VTD.
Airports Act 1996 (Cth) s 22(1) - provides that an airport lease is granted subject to all existing leases in relation to the land concerned.
Analysis:
The regulations do not refer to or authorise the LDA scheme. However, APAM contended that its right to do so arose as an incident of its rights as lessee of airport land. Mr Sheridan contended the lease of the balance of the airport to APAM did not give APAM the power to impose a condition of the type it sought to impose on persons entering the land it leased and the LDA scheme was a licensing scheme that was contrary to the relevant legislative arrangements that governed licensing schemes. Mr Sheridan also relied on the terms of the APAM lease that required APAM to use the premises as an airport and to develop the airport site consistent with a major international airport having regard to good business practice, which included providing appropriate facilities for the ease of access, expeditious movement and efficient use of the airport site by passengers and other users.
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that APAM as lessee had the right to legal possession of its land, with its concomitant right to exclude, subject to contractual obligations owed to Qantas, and contractual obligations owed to the Commonwealth. On this basis, the Court declared that APAM had the right to impose conditions on the entry onto its land, including by imposing as a condition of entry by hire car drivers compliance with the LDA scheme.
