Jele Chemists Pty Ltd v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2022] FCA 1445

Jele Chemists Pty Ltd v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2022] FCA 1445

The applicants failed to demonstrate a serious question to be tried as their challenge conflated merits review with judicial review; satisfaction under rule 10(3)(c) is a subjective matter and no evidence was provided that the Authority lacked probative material or failed in its statutory function. The balance of convenience does not favour the applicants as they are not ready to commence trading and alleged harm is speculative.

Parties
First Applicant: Jele Chemists Pty Ltd; Second Applicant: HBPharmacy Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Australian Community Pharmacy Authority; Second Respondent: Glenvale Pharmacy Pty Ltd; Prospective Third Respondent: Secretary, Department of Health
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunction, Judicial Review, Costs
Administrative Law Practice and Procedure Interlocutory Injunction Judicial Review Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jele Chemists Pty Ltd

First Applicant

HBPharmacy Pty Ltd

Second Applicant

Australian Community Pharmacy Authority

First Respondent

Glenvale Pharmacy Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Secretary, Department of Health

Prospective Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants can demonstrate a serious question to be tried for interlocutory injunction
  2. 2 Whether the balance of convenience favours a grant of injunction
  3. 3 Entitlement to costs for prospective third respondent

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to demonstrate a serious question to be tried as their challenge conflated merits review with judicial review; satisfaction under rule 10(3)(c) is a subjective matter and no evidence was provided that the Authority lacked probative material or failed in its statutory function. The balance of convenience does not favour the applicants as they are not ready to commence trading and alleged harm is speculative.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed

Orders

  • The interlocutory application, filed by the applicants on 25 November 2022, be dismissed.
  • The applicants pay the costs of the second respondent and the Secretary, Department of Health, of and incidental to the interlocutory application, such costs to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.