Samad v District Court of New South Wales [2000] NSWCA 344

Samad v District Court of New South Wales [2000] NSWCA 344

Clause 149 of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1994 (NSW) requires the Director-General (or District Court on appeal) to cancel or suspend a licence if a ground specified is established; the word 'may' in context regulates only the method—cancellation or suspension—rather than conferring a wider discretion to decline action. The District Court considered facts as at the hearing and did not err in admitting the hearsay evidence, which was admissible or any error was immaterial as sufficient admissible evidence supported the findings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['cancellation of Licence' 'statutory Interpretation' 'discretionary Powers of Administrative Decision Makers' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'hearsay Evidence' 'public Health Regulation']
['administrative Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'health Law'] ['cancellation of Licence' 'statutory Interpretation' 'discretionary Powers of Administrative Decision Makers' 'admissibility of Evidence' 'hearsay Evidence' 'public Health Regulation']

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 After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether clause 149 of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1994 (NSW) confers a discretionary or mandatory power to cancel a licence' 'Whether the District Court was required to consider facts existing at the date of the appeal hearing' 'Whether the District Court wrongly admitted hearsay evidence']

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 149 of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1994 (NSW) requires the Director-General (or District Court on appeal) to cancel or suspend a licence if a ground specified is established; the word 'may' in context regulates only the method—cancellation or suspension—rather than conferring a wider discretion to decline action. The District Court considered facts as at the hearing and did not err in admitting the hearsay evidence, which was admissible or any error was immaterial as sufficient admissible evidence supported the findings.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['Order the licence granted in favour of Barbara Street Clinic Pty Ltd to be cancelled with effect from four months from Tuesday 28 November 2000.' 'The appellant to pay the costs of the appeal.']