Carrick v Health Insurance Commission [2007] FCA 984

Carrick v Health Insurance Commission [2007] FCA 984

The Commission took into account all relevant considerations required by law in making the investigative referral, the Director acted within statutory and guideline parameters in the adjudicative referral, the sampling methodology employed by the Committee complied with legislative and Ministerial requirements, and consideration of materials by both the Director and Committee did not invalidate the process; therefore, the application on judicial review grounds was dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Jane Carrick; First Respondent: Health Insurance Commission; Second Respondent: Alan John Holmes in his capacity as Director, Professional Services Review; Third Respondent: Richard King, Graham Newstead, Glenda Peel and Richard Gordon constituting the Professional Services Review Committee No 352; Fourth Respondent: The Determining Authority established by section 106Q of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth)
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Application / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed except as to the constitutional grounds
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Professional Services Review Scheme, Procedural Fairness, Statutory Interpretation, Sampling Methodology
Administrative Law Health Law Judicial Review Professional Services Review Scheme Procedural Fairness Statutory Interpretation Sampling Methodology

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jane Carrick

Applicant

Health Insurance Commission

First Respondent

Alan John Holmes in his capacity as Director, Professional Services Review

Second Respondent

Richard King, Graham Newstead, Glenda Peel and Richard Gordon constituting the Professional Services Review Committee No 352

Third Respondent

The Determining Authority established by section 106Q of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth)

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Application / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commission failed to take into account relevant considerations in making the investigative referral under s 86(1) of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the Director miscarried his discretion or took into account irrelevant considerations in the adjudicative referral under s 93
  3. 3 Whether the Committee's sampling methodology for reviewing Dr Carrick's conduct was compliant with the statutory Determination

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission took into account all relevant considerations required by law in making the investigative referral, the Director acted within statutory and guideline parameters in the adjudicative referral, the sampling methodology employed by the Committee complied with legislative and Ministerial requirements, and consideration of materials by both the Director and Committee did not invalidate the process; therefore, the application on judicial review grounds was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed except as to the constitutional grounds

Orders

  • The application be dismissed except as to 'the constitutional grounds' as defined in the order made by Sackville J on 7 September 2006.
  • The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding except as to 'the constitutional grounds' as defined in the order made by Sackville J on 7 September 2006.