Staltari A.M & Anor v Pharmacy Restructuring Authority & Anor [1995] FCA 10

Staltari A.M & Anor v Pharmacy Restructuring Authority & Anor [1995] FCA 10

The Tribunal erred in deriving the meaning of 'full-line department store' from specialised trade evidence, because the guidelines did not displace the ordinary meaning. However, the ordinary and contextual meaning of 'full-line department store' did not include the junior or discount department stores identified in the guidelines, and the presence of K-mart and Big W did not make the Belmont Forum a 'regional centre' for guideline 3(eab). The Tribunal correctly determined that the Belmont Forum was not a regional centre and that the partners' application to transfer the Love Street pharmacy to the Belmont Forum premises could not be approved, so the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 January 1995
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under S.44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Affirming a Recommendation of the Pharmacy Restructuring Authority / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal From the General Administrative Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['judicial Review' 'pharmacy Approvals to Supply Pharmaceutical Benefits' 'construction of Ministerial Guidelines' "meaning of 'regional Centre' and 'full Line Department Store'"]
['administrative Law' 'health Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['judicial Review' 'pharmacy Approvals to Supply Pharmaceutical Benefits' 'construction of Ministerial Guidelines' "meaning of 'regional Centre' and 'full Line Department Store'"]

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 Under S.44 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 From a Decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Affirming a Recommendation of the Pharmacy Restructuring Authority / Federal Court Judgment on Appeal From the General Administrative Division of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the proper construction of s.99L of the National Health Act 1953 and the relevant ministerial guidelines allowed approval of the applicants as pharmacists at the Belmont Forum premises.' "Whether the Belmont Forum was a 'regional centre' within guideline 3(eab)." "Whether a 'full-line department store' includes large discount department stores such as K-mart and Big W." "Whether the Tribunal erred in receiving and relying on evidence of a specialised trade meaning for 'full-line department store'."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred in deriving the meaning of 'full-line department store' from specialised trade evidence, because the guidelines did not displace the ordinary meaning. However, the ordinary and contextual meaning of 'full-line department store' did not include the junior or discount department stores identified in the guidelines, and the presence of K-mart and Big W did not make the Belmont Forum a 'regional centre' for guideline 3(eab). The Tribunal correctly determined that the Belmont Forum was not a regional centre and that the partners' application to transfer the Love Street pharmacy to the Belmont Forum premises could not be approved, so the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

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