Assarapin v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2015] FCA 268

Assarapin v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2015] FCA 268

The Authority did not err in law by finding that the Approved Premises, although they may once have been within a facility, had ceased to be within a facility after the building in which they were located was demolished and the premises were unavailable for occupation and no longer formed part of Westfield Miranda Shopping Centre. The Rules use the present tense and do not require premises that were within a facility when approval was granted to be treated as remaining within that facility for later Item 124 applications. Each applicant was a person aggrieved because each supplied pharmaceutical benefits at premises within 500 metres of Mr Lin's New Premises, but the substantive judicial...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under S 5 of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) and S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) / Application for Judicial Review of the Authority's Recommendation and the Secretary's Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'national Health Act 1953 (cth) S 90 Approval' 'australian Community Pharmacy Authority Rules' 'person Aggrieved Standing' 'pharmacy Relocation Approval' 'construction of Item 124 of Sch 1, Part 1 of the Rules']
['administrative Law' 'health Law'] ['judicial Review' 'national Health Act 1953 (cth) S 90 Approval' 'australian Community Pharmacy Authority Rules' 'person Aggrieved Standing' 'pharmacy Relocation Approval' 'construction of Item 124 of Sch 1, Part 1 of the Rules']

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 Under S 5 of the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) and S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) / Application for Judicial Review of the Authority's Recommendation and the Secretary's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority's recommendation to approve Mr Lin under s 90 of the National Health Act 1953 (Cth) involved an error of law in construing Item 124 of Sch 1, Part 1 of the National Health (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority Rules) Determination 2011." 'Whether approved premises ceased to be within a facility within the meaning of Item 124 after the building in which they were located was demolished.' "Whether each applicant was a person aggrieved by the Authority's decision and had standing under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth)." "Whether Mr Hack's affidavit evidence on standing should be admitted."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Authority did not err in law by finding that the Approved Premises, although they may once have been within a facility, had ceased to be within a facility after the building in which they were located was demolished and the premises were unavailable for occupation and no longer formed part of Westfield Miranda Shopping Centre. The Rules use the present tense and do not require premises that were within a facility when approval was granted to be treated as remaining within that facility for later Item 124 applications. Each applicant was a person aggrieved because each supplied pharmaceutical benefits at premises within 500 metres of Mr Lin's New Premises, but the substantive judicial...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicants pay 80% of the second respondent's costs." 'There be no other order as to costs.']