Mathews v Health Insurance Commission (No 1) [2005] FCA 1061

Mathews v Health Insurance Commission (No 1) [2005] FCA 1061

The application for discovery of the committee's file is dismissed as statutory immunity under s 106F(1) of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth), as interpreted in Herijanto v Refugee Review Tribunal (No.2), precludes discovery of documents revealing the committee’s decision-making process. Applications against the commission and director are rejected as they are effectively non-parties after certain grounds were abandoned.

Parties
Applicant: John William Mathews; First Respondent: Health Insurance Commission; Second Respondent: Alan Johns Holmes (in his capacity as Director of Professional Services Review); Third Respondent: Bernard Kelly, Peter Clyne and Anne Stuart (constituting Professional Services Review Committee No. 223); Fourth Respondent: The Determining Authority (established by section 106Q of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth))
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review and Motion for Discovery / Interlocutory (discovery Application)
Outcome
Applicant's motion for an order for discovery dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Statutory Immunity, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Practice and Procedure Discovery Statutory Immunity 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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John William Mathews

Applicant

Health Insurance Commission

First Respondent

Alan Johns Holmes (in his capacity as Director of Professional Services Review)

Second Respondent

Bernard Kelly, Peter Clyne and Anne Stuart (constituting Professional Services Review Committee No. 223)

Third Respondent

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

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Judicial Review and Motion for Discovery / Interlocutory (discovery Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether discovery of the Committee's file is necessary and available in light of statutory immunity under s 106F(1) of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether discovery should be ordered against the Health Insurance Commission and the Director, given their current role in the proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The application for discovery of the committee's file is dismissed as statutory immunity under s 106F(1) of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth), as interpreted in Herijanto v Refugee Review Tribunal (No.2), precludes discovery of documents revealing the committee’s decision-making process. Applications against the commission and director are rejected as they are effectively non-parties after certain grounds were abandoned.

Court Disposition

Applicant's motion for an order for discovery dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant's motion for an order for discovery be dismissed.