Selim v Lele [2006] FCA 126

Selim v Lele [2006] FCA 126

The impugned provisions of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth), including Part VAA, regulate the manner in which medical services are rendered for the purposes of the Medicare Scheme and attach conditions to entitlement to benefits. They do not impose any legal or practical compulsion to perform medical services, nor do they constitute civil conscription prohibited by s 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the challenged provisions are constitutionally valid.

Parties
Applicant: Ashraf Thabit Selim; First Respondent: Vinayak (Vinoo) Lele, Patrick Tan and David Rivett constituting the Professional Services Review Committee No 309; Second Respondent: The Determining Authority established by Section 106Q of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth); Third Respondent: Health Insurance Commission; Fourth Respondent: Alan John Holmes in his capacity as Director, Professional Services Review
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review and Constitutional Challenge / Final Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
S 51(xxiii A) of the Constitution, Civil Conscription, Medical and Dental Services, Health Insurance Act 1973 (cth), Judicial Review, Professional Discipline
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Health Law S 51(xxiii A) of the Constitution Civil Conscription Medical and Dental Services Health Insurance Act 1973 (cth) Judicial Review +1 more

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashraf Thabit Selim

Applicant

Vinayak (Vinoo) Lele, Patrick Tan and David Rivett constituting the Professional Services Review Committee No 309

First Respondent

The Determining Authority established by Section 106Q of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth)

Second Respondent

Health Insurance Commission

Third Respondent

Alan John Holmes in his capacity as Director, Professional Services Review

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review and Constitutional Challenge / Final Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Part VAA of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) exceeds Commonwealth legislative power or contravenes the prohibition against civil conscription in s 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether sections 82, 86 and 106U of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) are constitutionally valid

Ratio Decidendi

The impugned provisions of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth), including Part VAA, regulate the manner in which medical services are rendered for the purposes of the Medicare Scheme and attach conditions to entitlement to benefits. They do not impose any legal or practical compulsion to perform medical services, nor do they constitute civil conscription prohibited by s 51(xxiiiA) of the Constitution. Accordingly, the challenged provisions are constitutionally valid.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicant pay the respondents' costs.