Bristol-Myers Squibb Australia Pty Ltd v Minister for Health & Family Services [1997] FCA 907

Bristol-Myers Squibb Australia Pty Ltd v Minister for Health & Family Services [1997] FCA 907

The appeal fails because the representations made by the Commonwealth (through guidelines and officials) did not amount to an enforceable promise or create a legitimate expectation that survived knowledge of funding limits and competitive assessment; the guidelines were applied consistently, the Ministers acted within their discretion, there was no breach of natural justice, and no estoppel arose as the applicants did not act to their detriment on a continuing assumption of approval.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 1997
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['natural Justice' 'improper Exercise of Power' 'estoppel' 'review of Ministerial Discretion' 'australian Government Industry Policy']
['administrative Law'] ['natural Justice' 'improper Exercise of Power' 'estoppel' 'review of Ministerial Discretion' 'australian Government Industry Policy']

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

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Ministers breached natural justice in refusing the applicant's proposal for Phase II funding under the Factor (f) Scheme" 'Whether the Ministers failed to take into account relevant considerations or exercised their power improperly' "Whether the Commonwealth was estopped from declining the applicant's proposal for Phase II funding" 'Whether the application of the 1992 guidelines for Phase II was inconsistent or discriminatory']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal fails because the representations made by the Commonwealth (through guidelines and officials) did not amount to an enforceable promise or create a legitimate expectation that survived knowledge of funding limits and competitive assessment; the guidelines were applied consistently, the Ministers acted within their discretion, there was no breach of natural justice, and no estoppel arose as the applicants did not act to their detriment on a continuing assumption of approval.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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