Mathews v Health Insurance Commission (No. 3)[2006] FCA 453

Mathews v Health Insurance Commission (No. 3)[2006] FCA 453

The respondents' motion essentially failed because the orders made on 10 March 2006 should not be vacated or varied in the substantive manner sought. The Court varied Orders 1 and 2 only to better reflect its original intention: to set aside the Director's referral to PSRC No. 223 of the reference known as Adjudicative Referral No. 223 and to require the Director to establish a differently constituted committee to consider that reference according to law. Those orders did not require a fresh investigation under subs 89(1), although they required a new adjudicative referral and report under subs 93(1) and 93(6). The attempted costs variation was ill conceived, too late and arguably without...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Proceeding Concerning Health Insurance and Professional Services Review / Notice of Motion Seeking Vacation or Variation of Orders Made on 10 March 2006
Outcome
Motion dismissed; Orders 1 and 2 made on 10 March 2006 varied to better reflect the intention of the Court; respondents ordered to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the motion.
Legal Topics
['professional Services Review' 'inappropriate Practice' 'variation of Orders' 'remittal to Differently Constituted Committee' 'costs']
['administrative Law' 'health Insurance'] ['professional Services Review' 'inappropriate Practice' 'variation of Orders' 'remittal to Differently Constituted Committee' 'costs']

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

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Proceeding Concerning Health Insurance and Professional Services Review / Notice of Motion Seeking Vacation or Variation of Orders Made on 10 March 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Order 1 made on 10 March 2006 setting aside Adjudicative Referral No. 223 should be vacated and replaced by an order setting aside the findings of Professional Services Review Committee No. 223.' 'Whether Order 2 made on 10 March 2006 should be varied to direct amendment of Adjudicative Referral No. 223 and establishment of a differently constituted committee.' "Whether setting aside the Director's referral required the Director to conduct a fresh investigation under subs 89(1) of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth)." "Whether the costs order made on 10 March 2006 should be varied so that respondents pay 60 per cent of the applicant's costs." "Whether the respondents should pay the applicant's costs of the motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents' motion essentially failed because the orders made on 10 March 2006 should not be vacated or varied in the substantive manner sought. The Court varied Orders 1 and 2 only to better reflect its original intention: to set aside the Director's referral to PSRC No. 223 of the reference known as Adjudicative Referral No. 223 and to require the Director to establish a differently constituted committee to consider that reference according to law. Those orders did not require a fresh investigation under subs 89(1), although they required a new adjudicative referral and report under subs 93(1) and 93(6). The attempted costs variation was ill conceived, too late and arguably without...

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed; Orders 1 and 2 made on 10 March 2006 varied to better reflect the intention of the Court; respondents ordered to pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the motion.

Orders

  • ['The motion be dismissed.' "The respondents pay the applicant's costs of and incidental to the motion." "To better reflect the intention of the Court, Order 1 made on 10 March 2006 is hereby varied so as to read as follows: The Director's referral to PSRC No. 223 of the reference known as Adjudicative Referral No....