WHITE v DISTRICT COURT [1999] NSWCA 406

WHITE v DISTRICT COURT [1999] NSWCA 406

The applications succeeded because the record did not disclose the size of the fees payable by Mrs White after the first year or the basis on which they would be calculated, and the first-year fees did not appear to be calculated by reference to profit or turnover. The Court therefore could not find that her District Court appeals were bound to fail or that remittal would be futile. The fact that the agreements were franchise agreements did not establish as a matter of law that the management company had a pecuniary interest in the pharmacy businesses within s 25(1).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 1999
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Judicial Review; Summonses Seeking Relief in the Nature of Certiorari for Error of Law on the Face of the Record / Court of Appeal Reconsideration of Earlier Dismissal of the Claimant's Summonses Before Orders Had Been Entered
Outcome
Applications for review allowed; earlier orders vacated; District Court decisions quashed and proceedings remitted.
Legal Topics
['certiorari' 'error of Law on the Face of the Record' 'appeal From Pharmacy Board to District Court' 'pecuniary Interest in Pharmacy Businesses' 'management Agreements and Franchise Agreements' 'futility of Remittal']
['administrative Law' 'judicial Review' 'pharmacy Regulation'] ['certiorari' 'error of Law on the Face of the Record' 'appeal From Pharmacy Board to District Court' 'pecuniary Interest in Pharmacy Businesses' 'management Agreements and Franchise Agreements' 'futility of Remittal']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Judicial Review; Summonses Seeking Relief in the Nature of Certiorari for Error of Law on the Face of the Record / Court of Appeal Reconsideration of Earlier Dismissal of the Claimant's Summonses Before Orders Had Been Entered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court should reconsider its earlier decision dismissing Mrs White's summonses because the orders had not been entered." "Whether the record permitted the Court to find that Mrs White's appeals to the District Court were bound to fail, making remittal futile." "Whether the proposed management agreements gave a non-pharmacist management company a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in Mrs White's pharmacy businesses contrary to s 25(1) of the Act." 'Whether the characterisation of the management agreements as franchise agreements established as a matter of law that the management company had a pecuniary interest in the pharmacies.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applications succeeded because the record did not disclose the size of the fees payable by Mrs White after the first year or the basis on which they would be calculated, and the first-year fees did not appear to be calculated by reference to profit or turnover. The Court therefore could not find that her District Court appeals were bound to fail or that remittal would be futile. The fact that the agreements were franchise agreements did not establish as a matter of law that the management company had a pecuniary interest in the pharmacy businesses within s 25(1).

Court Disposition

Applications for review allowed; earlier orders vacated; District Court decisions quashed and proceedings remitted.

Orders

  • ['The orders pronounced by this Court on 3 December 1998 vacated.' 'In lieu thereof order that the decisions of the District Court in matters 833 and 834 of 1996 be quashed.' 'The second opponent to pay the costs of the claimant and of the first opponent, in the latter case as a submitting party.' 'Proceedings...