In modern administrative law, as a result of developments in both case and statute law, the power of the Courts to grant declarations and quash decisions is wider than was thought in the _Reynolds_ case in 1909 (29 N.Z.L.R. at 40). It may be that in a sufficiently clear-cut case the jurisdiction, either under the Act or at common law, will be found to extend to parts of Commission reports even when they are not linked with costs orders. But in the end that jurisdictional question does not have to be decided in this case, and we reserve our opinion on it. If the jurisdiction does go so far, it must be discretionary, as the grant of declarations always is. The Court would have to be satisfied that grounds so strong as to require it to act in that unusual way had been made out. In our opinion they would be made out clearly enough as regards paragraph 377, which stands out from the general body of the report. But the quashing of the costs order because of its association with that paragraph is enough to do justice there. The position is less clear as regards the other paragraphs complained of. For various reasons they are all in a marginal category. What has been said in this judgment may help to enable them to be seen in perspective. On balance we would not be prepared to hold that as to these other paragraphs the applicants have made out a sufficiently strong case to justify this Court in interfering, assuming that there is jurisdiction to do so. In the result, the application for review having succeeded on the main issue, we see no need to and are not prepared to go further in granting relief. Our decision is simply that the $150,000 costs order be quashed on the grounds already stated. As to the costs of the present proceedings, they should be reserved, as there has been no argument on the matter. _Solicitors_ Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet & Co., Auckland, for First and Second Applicants. Sheffield Young & Ellis, Auckland, for Third Applicant. Crown Law Office, Wellington, for First, Fourth and Sixth Respondents. Keegan Alexander Tedcastle & Friedlander, Auckland, for Fifth Respondent. C.A. 95/81 In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand--Between Air New Zealand Limited. First Appellant, and Morrison Ritchie Davis, Second Appellant, and Ian Harding Gemmell, Third Appellant, 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_ 5th-12th October 1981. _Counsel_ L.W. Brown, Q.C., for first and second appellants, with R.J. McGrane. D.A.R. Williams for third appellant, with L.L. Stevens. G.P. Barton for first respondent, with R.S. Chambers. C.J. McGuire for fourth respondent (Civil Aviation Division)--leave to withdraw. A.F. MacAlister for fifth respondent, with P.J. Davison.