Jele Chemists Pty Ltd v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2023] FCA 1652

Jele Chemists Pty Ltd v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2023] FCA 1652

The Authority was not required to have regard to whether the planning approval had taken effect; satisfaction that the proposed premises could be used for a pharmacy under land development laws refers to possibility, not certainty, and includes unbuilt premises. The applicant, operating nearby, had sufficient interest in line with precedent to have standing, but the substantive grounds for review failed as the Rules do not require a finalised development approval or a built structure. Both the notice of objection to competency and the originating application were therefore dismissed.

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
21 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Standing in Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Pharmacy Approval, Planning Laws, Federal Jurisdiction
Administrative Law Standing in Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Pharmacy Approval Planning Laws Federal Jurisdiction

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 23 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 / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Authority had jurisdiction to make the recommendation to approve supply of pharmaceutical benefits from particular premises
  2. 2 Whether the Authority was required to have regard to local government and State and Territory planning laws
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has standing under the ADJR Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Authority was not required to have regard to whether the planning approval had taken effect; satisfaction that the proposed premises could be used for a pharmacy under land development laws refers to possibility, not certainty, and includes unbuilt premises. The applicant, operating nearby, had sufficient interest in line with precedent to have standing, but the substantive grounds for review failed as the Rules do not require a finalised development approval or a built structure. Both the notice of objection to competency and the originating application were therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Notice of Objection to Competency filed on 3 April 2023 dismissed
  • Further Amended Originating Application filed on 29 March 2023 dismissed