Stambe v Minister for Health (No 2) [2019] FCA 479

Stambe v Minister for Health (No 2) [2019] FCA 479

The Court held that the orders should set aside the Minister's approval of the second respondent with prospective effect (in two months), and at that time remit the matter to the Minister for reconsideration according to law under s 90A(2) National Health Act 1953 (Cth), also requiring the Minister to inform the applicant and invite submissions. This approach preserves the validity of the existing approval until the date specified, thereby avoiding immediate disruption to public access and the pharmacy's operations, consistent with legislative intent that unlawful administrative decisions generally have effect unless and until set aside. The flexible remedy available under s 16 of the...

Parties
Applicant: Dominic Stambe; First Respondent: Minister for Health; Second Respondent: YL Health Group Pty Ltd (ACN 602 917 742)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Orders and Reasons for Judgment After Substantive Decision
Outcome
Minister's decision set aside with effect from 9 am on 11 June 2019; matter remitted to Minister for reconsideration according to law; costs awarded to applicant
Legal Topics
Ministerial Discretion, Judicial Review Remedies, Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Timing and Effect of Judicial Review Remedies, Remitter to Decision Maker, Costs Orders, Jurisdictional Error
Administrative Law Statutory Interpretation Health Law Ministerial Discretion Judicial Review Remedies Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme Timing and Effect of Judicial Review Remedies Remitter to Decision Maker +2 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 4 Authorities cited 27 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dominic Stambe

Applicant

Minister for Health

First Respondent

YL Health Group Pty Ltd (ACN 602 917 742)

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Orders and Reasons for Judgment After Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should remit the matter to the Minister for Health for reconsideration under the National Health Act 1953 (Cth)
  2. 2 The effect and timing of orders setting aside a Ministerial approval affected by legal error
  3. 3 Whether a decision affected by jurisdictional error remains effective in fact and law until set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the orders should set aside the Minister's approval of the second respondent with prospective effect (in two months), and at that time remit the matter to the Minister for reconsideration according to law under s 90A(2) National Health Act 1953 (Cth), also requiring the Minister to inform the applicant and invite submissions. This approach preserves the validity of the existing approval until the date specified, thereby avoiding immediate disruption to public access and the pharmacy's operations, consistent with legislative intent that unlawful administrative decisions generally have effect unless and until set aside. The flexible remedy available under s 16 of the...

Court Disposition

Minister's decision set aside with effect from 9 am on 11 June 2019; matter remitted to Minister for reconsideration according to law; costs awarded to applicant

Orders

  • Pursuant to s 16(1)(a) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), with effect from 9 am on 11 June 2019, set aside the decision of the first respondent made on 1 November 2017 approving the supply of pharmaceutical benefits by the second respondent from specified premises.
  • Pursuant to s 16(1)(b) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth), with effect from 11 June 2019, remitter of the second respondent's application for approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits to the first respondent for further consideration according to law.