Artinian v Commonwealth of Australia [1997] FCA 1604

Artinian v Commonwealth of Australia [1997] FCA 1604

The applicant failed to establish an arguable case of ostensible bias: the evidence did not justify inferring that the Committee members shared Dr Shepherd's views about medical centres or that a defamation judgment against the AMA created a reasonable apprehension of bias in AMA-associated Committee members, and there was no evidence that the reference concerned medical centres. The balance of convenience did not favour stopping a Committee hearing that had already commenced. In any event, the applicant's failure to use the statutory challenge procedure under s96 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) and his participation in the Committee hearing were discretionary reasons to refuse...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 1997
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Proceedings Concerning Decisions Under Part VAA of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (cth) / Interlocutory Application for Relief Restraining the Professional Services Review Committee (no 29) From Further Considering the Reference
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['professional Services Review Committee' 'apprehended Bias' 'natural Justice' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'parliamentary Privilege' 'health Insurance Act 1973 (cth)']
['administrative Law' 'health Law' 'judicial Review'] ['professional Services Review Committee' 'apprehended Bias' 'natural Justice' 'interlocutory Injunction' 'parliamentary Privilege' 'health Insurance Act 1973 (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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Proceedings Concerning Decisions Under Part VAA of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (cth) / Interlocutory Application for Relief Restraining the Professional Services Review Committee (no 29) From Further Considering the Reference

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had shown an arguable case that the members of the Professional Services Review Committee were affected by ostensible bias because of their connections with the Australian Medical Association.' 'Whether the balance of convenience favoured interlocutory relief restraining the Committee from continuing its consideration of the reference.' 'Whether discretionary considerations, including failure to use the challenge procedure under s96 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) and participation in the Committee hearing, disentitled the applicant to relief.' 'Whether Hansard material concerning proceedings in Parliament could be received for the purpose of drawing inferences relevant to alleged bias.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to establish an arguable case of ostensible bias: the evidence did not justify inferring that the Committee members shared Dr Shepherd's views about medical centres or that a defamation judgment against the AMA created a reasonable apprehension of bias in AMA-associated Committee members, and there was no evidence that the reference concerned medical centres. The balance of convenience did not favour stopping a Committee hearing that had already commenced. In any event, the applicant's failure to use the statutory challenge procedure under s96 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) and his participation in the Committee hearing were discretionary reasons to refuse...

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for interlocutory relief should be dismissed.' "The applicant should pay the respondent's costs of the interlocutory application."]