Hope v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2016] FCA 1597

Hope v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2016] FCA 1597

There is a sufficient likelihood of success on the applicants' claim that the required statutory criteria for pharmacy approval may not have been satisfied—namely, whether the proposed premises are 'in a small shopping centre' and at least 500m from the nearest approved premises. The balance of convenience supports maintaining the interim restraint pending determination of the substantive application.

Parties
First Applicant: Geoffrey & Elizabeth Hope trading as Elizabeth Hope Priceline Pharmacy; Second Applicant: Rohan Targett trading as Brighton Pharmacy; First Respondent: Australian Community Pharmacy Authority; Second Respondent: Secretary of the Department of Health; Third Respondent: Slopen Main Pty Ltd as Trustee for Slopen Main Discretionary Trust
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Interlocutory/injunction Continuation
Outcome
Continuation of interlocutory injunction; directions for further conduct; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Judicial Review, Pharmacy Approval, Interpretation of Statutory Rules, Statutory Construction
Administrative Law Interlocutory Injunctions Judicial Review Pharmacy Approval Interpretation of Statutory Rules Statutory Construction

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Geoffrey & Elizabeth Hope trading as Elizabeth Hope Priceline Pharmacy

First Applicant

Rohan Targett trading as Brighton Pharmacy

Second Applicant

Australian Community Pharmacy Authority

First Respondent

Secretary of the Department of Health

Second Respondent

Slopen Main Pty Ltd as Trustee for Slopen Main Discretionary Trust

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Interlocutory/injunction Continuation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Authority lawfully recommended approval of a new pharmacy under the National Health Act 1953 and the relevant Rules
  2. 2 Meaning of 'small shopping centre' and 'in a small shopping centre' under the Rules
  3. 3 Whether the proposed premises are at least 500m from the nearest approved premises as required by the Rules

Ratio Decidendi

There is a sufficient likelihood of success on the applicants' claim that the required statutory criteria for pharmacy approval may not have been satisfied—namely, whether the proposed premises are 'in a small shopping centre' and at least 500m from the nearest approved premises. The balance of convenience supports maintaining the interim restraint pending determination of the substantive application.

Court Disposition

Continuation of interlocutory injunction; directions for further conduct; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Orders 1(a) and (b) made on 2 December 2016 remain in force until judgment or further order.
  • Applicants to file and serve amended statement of claim by 10 January 2017.