Murray v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2017] FCA 705

Murray v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2017] FCA 705

The application, read as a whole and in light of its supporting material, was for approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits from part of Unit 110, not the whole of Unit 110. The Authority understood and recommended the application on that basis, lawfully deferred consideration to obtain further information, did not misconstrue the Rules, and did not fail to consider any mandatory relevant consideration. The delegate's formal approval, although not using the word "part", plainly related to St Moses' application and was not invalid. Accordingly, all grounds of review failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of an Australian Community Pharmacy Authority Recommendation and a Secretary's Delegate Approval Under S 90 of the National Health Act 1953 (cth) / Final Judgment on Further Amended Originating Application for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'pharmaceutical Benefits Approval' 'australian Community Pharmacy Authority Recommendation' 'approved Pharmacists' 'construction of Application and Premises' 'procedural Fairness']
['administrative Law'] ['judicial Review' 'pharmaceutical Benefits Approval' 'australian Community Pharmacy Authority Recommendation' 'approved Pharmacists' 'construction of Application and Premises' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Judicial Review of an Australian Community Pharmacy Authority Recommendation and a Secretary's Delegate Approval Under S 90 of the National Health Act 1953 (cth) / Final Judgment on Further Amended Originating Application for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether St Moses' application for approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits was in respect of the whole of Unit 110 or only part of Unit 110, 227 Flemington Road, Franklin." 'Whether the Authority acted contrary to the Rules by deferring consideration of the application on 26 August 2016 instead of recommending that it not be approved.' 'Whether the Authority misconstrued the Rules by considering whether only part of the proposed premises met the relevant requirements.' 'Whether the Authority failed to take into account mandatory relevant considerations concerning the medical practice also located at Unit 110.' 'Whether item 130 required the proposed pharmacy premises to be separate or distinct from the relevant medical practice.' "Whether the delegate's approval was invalid because the Authority's recommendation referred to part of Unit 110 while the formal approval referred to premises situated at Unit 110."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application, read as a whole and in light of its supporting material, was for approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits from part of Unit 110, not the whole of Unit 110. The Authority understood and recommended the application on that basis, lawfully deferred consideration to obtain further information, did not misconstrue the Rules, and did not fail to consider any mandatory relevant consideration. The delegate's formal approval, although not using the word "part", plainly related to St Moses' application and was not invalid. Accordingly, all grounds of review failed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The further amended originating application for judicial review is dismissed.' 'The applicants must pay the costs of the first and third respondents, as agreed or assessed.']