Norouzi v Determining Authority established by s 106Q of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) [2023] FCA 35

Norouzi v Determining Authority established by s 106Q of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) [2023] FCA 35

The application failed because the applicant had already been given a draft determination under s 106T that identified the proposed repayment of $459,555.55, no further draft determination was required after only the repayment direction was quashed and remitted, and the applicant was given and used opportunities to make submissions so no practical injustice or denial of procedural fairness was shown. The challenge to the amount of repayment sought to contest the merits of the first respondent's discretionary assessment rather than establish judicial review error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Originating Application for Judicial Review / Application Dismissed
Outcome
The originating application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['professional Services Review Scheme Under Part VAA of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (cth)' 'procedural Fairness' 'draft Determination and Final Determination' 'repayment of Medicare Benefits' 'inappropriate Practice' 'merits Review Versus Judicial Review']
['administrative Law' 'health Insurance' 'judicial Review'] ['professional Services Review Scheme Under Part VAA of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (cth)' 'procedural Fairness' 'draft Determination and Final Determination' 'repayment of Medicare Benefits' 'inappropriate Practice' 'merits Review Versus Judicial Review']

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

Originating Application for Judicial Review / Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the first respondent failed to comply with s 106T of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) or denied procedural fairness by not providing a further draft determination before making the repayment determination.' 'Whether the first respondent misunderstood its function or constructively failed to carry out its statutory task in directing repayment of $459,555.55.' "Whether the applicant's challenge impermissibly sought merits review rather than judicial review."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the applicant had already been given a draft determination under s 106T that identified the proposed repayment of $459,555.55, no further draft determination was required after only the repayment direction was quashed and remitted, and the applicant was given and used opportunities to make submissions so no practical injustice or denial of procedural fairness was shown. The challenge to the amount of repayment sought to contest the merits of the first respondent's discretionary assessment rather than establish judicial review error.

Court Disposition

The originating application for judicial review was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The originating application for judicial review, filed by the applicant on 6 April 2021, be dismissed with costs to be taxed if not otherwise agreed.']