Jele Chemists Pty Ltd v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (No 3) [2024] FCA 606

Jele Chemists Pty Ltd v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (No 3) [2024] FCA 606

The applicant is to pay the first respondent's costs up to and including 29 March 2023, being the time after which there was an active proper contradictor, and to pay the second respondent's costs, with no order as to the third respondent's costs. The presence of active contradictors engaged the Hardiman principle to limit costs. No stay of the costs determination was warranted, and indemnity costs on the Calderbank basis were not justified.

Parties
Applicant: Jele Chemists Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Australian Community Pharmacy Authority; Second Respondent: Glenvale Pharmacy Pty Ltd; Third Respondent: Secretary, Department of Health and Aged Care
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Post Final Judgment (costs Determination)
Outcome
Orders as to costs
Legal Topics
Costs, Judicial Review, Standing, Hardiman Principle
Administrative Law Costs Judicial Review Standing Hardiman Principle

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 6 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jele Chemists Pty Ltd

Applicant

Australian Community Pharmacy Authority

First Respondent

Glenvale Pharmacy Pty Ltd

Second Respondent

Secretary, Department of Health and Aged Care

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Post Final Judgment (costs Determination)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate orders as to costs following dismissal of the application
  2. 2 Application of the Hardiman principle when appropriate contradictors are present
  3. 3 Whether costs should be deferred pending appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is to pay the first respondent's costs up to and including 29 March 2023, being the time after which there was an active proper contradictor, and to pay the second respondent's costs, with no order as to the third respondent's costs. The presence of active contradictors engaged the Hardiman principle to limit costs. No stay of the costs determination was warranted, and indemnity costs on the Calderbank basis were not justified.

Court Disposition

Orders as to costs

Orders

  • The applicant pay the first respondent's costs to be assessed or agreed up to and including 29 March 2023.
  • The applicant pay the second respondent's costs to be assessed or agreed.