Minister for Health & Aged Care v Pharmacia & Upjohn Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 75

Minister for Health & Aged Care v Pharmacia & Upjohn Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 75

The Tribunal's decision to grant an extension of time was open to it and was not manifestly unreasonable: the Tribunal did not ignore the legislative scheme or the existence of substantial fresh material, did not decide the merits when assessing reasonable prospects, had evidence supporting its inference that P&U was agitating for registration, and could find from accepted evidence and common sense that refusal of an extension would cause P&U cost and delay and that granting it would provide a corresponding advantage.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Granting an Extension of Time / Full Court Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'extension of Time' 'registration of Therapeutic Goods' 'manifest Unreasonableness' 'fresh Material on Merits Review']
['administrative Law' 'therapeutic Goods Regulation'] ['judicial Review' 'administrative Appeals Tribunal' 'extension of Time' 'registration of Therapeutic Goods' 'manifest Unreasonableness' 'fresh Material on Merits Review']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court Dismissing an Application for Judicial Review Under the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) of an Administrative Appeals Tribunal Decision Granting an Extension of Time / Full Court Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal failed to take into account the legislative scheme and the absence of departmental investigation of fresh material that would be before the Tribunal on merits review' 'Whether the Tribunal impermissibly embarked on a merits inquiry when considering reasonable prospects of success by reference to Re Eli Lilly Australia Pty Ltd v Minister for Health & Family Services (No. 2)' "Whether there was evidence to support the Tribunal's conclusion that Pharmacia and Upjohn Pty Ltd was agitating for registration of its product between 2 August 1999 and 14 December 1999" 'Whether the Tribunal erred in concluding that Pharmacia and Upjohn Pty Ltd would gain an advantage from proceeding with Tribunal review rather than making a new application for registration' "Whether the Tribunal's decision was manifestly unreasonable"]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal's decision to grant an extension of time was open to it and was not manifestly unreasonable: the Tribunal did not ignore the legislative scheme or the existence of substantial fresh material, did not decide the merits when assessing reasonable prospects, had evidence supporting its inference that P&U was agitating for registration, and could find from accepted evidence and common sense that refusal of an extension would cause P&U cost and delay and that granting it would provide a corresponding advantage.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant to pay the respondents' costs."]