AstraZeneca Pty Ltd v Minister for Health and Ageing [2011] FCA 487

AstraZeneca Pty Ltd v Minister for Health and Ageing [2011] FCA 487

The PBAC and Minister were required under the National Health Act 1953 (Cth) to consider whether drugs, not particular pharmaceutical items or doses, were interchangeable on an individual patient basis. There was no misunderstanding of statutory functions or procedural error. The application failed as the statutory requirement was properly understood and performed.

Parties
Applicant: AstraZeneca Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Minister for Health and Ageing; Second Respondent: Professor Lloyd Sansom; Third Respondent: Dr Jim Buttery; Fourth Respondent: Professor Terry Campbell; Fifth Respondent: Professor Jennifer Doust; Sixth Respondent: Professor Albert Frauman; Seventh Respondent: Professor Michael Frommer; Eighth Respondent: Professor David Isaacs; Ninth Respondent: Professor Claire Jackson; Tenth Respondent: Professor David Le Couteur; Eleventh Respondent: Professor Geoff McColl; Twelfth Respondent: Mr Mitch Messer; Thirteenth Respondent: Dr Karen Peachey; Fourteenth Respondent: Dr Andrew Roberts; Fifteenth Respondent: Dr Rashmi Sharma; Sixteenth Respondent: Associate Professor Rosalie Viney; Seventeenth Respondent: Professor Robyn Ward; Eighteenth Respondent: Dr Steven Hambleton; Nineteenth Respondent: Ms Frances Wilson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Therapeutic Groups, Interchangeable Drugs, Procedural Requirements Under the National Health Act 1953 (cth)
Administrative Law Health Law Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Therapeutic Groups Interchangeable Drugs Procedural Requirements Under the National Health Act 1953 (cth)

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AstraZeneca Pty Ltd

Applicant

Minister for Health and Ageing

First Respondent

Professor Lloyd Sansom

Second Respondent

Dr Jim Buttery

Third Respondent

Professor Terry Campbell

Fourth Respondent

Professor Jennifer Doust

Fifth Respondent

Professor Albert Frauman

Sixth Respondent

Professor Michael Frommer

Seventh Respondent

Professor David Isaacs

Eighth Respondent

Professor Claire Jackson

Ninth Respondent

Professor David Le Couteur

Tenth Respondent

Professor Geoff McColl

Eleventh Respondent

Mr Mitch Messer

Twelfth Respondent

Dr Karen Peachey

Thirteenth Respondent

Dr Andrew Roberts

Fourteenth Respondent

Dr Rashmi Sharma

Fifteenth Respondent

Associate Professor Rosalie Viney

Sixteenth Respondent

Professor Robyn Ward

Seventeenth Respondent

Dr Steven Hambleton

Eighteenth Respondent

Ms Frances Wilson

Nineteenth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether PBAC and Minister provided advice as to interchangeability of drugs on an individual patient basis as required under the National Health Act 1953 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether determinations were invalid for misunderstanding or failing to properly consider legislative functions, particularly the inclusion of 40 mg rosuvastatin tablets in the Statins-HP therapeutic group

Ratio Decidendi

The PBAC and Minister were required under the National Health Act 1953 (Cth) to consider whether drugs, not particular pharmaceutical items or doses, were interchangeable on an individual patient basis. There was no misunderstanding of statutory functions or procedural error. The application failed as the statutory requirement was properly understood and performed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The second amended application is dismissed with costs