Farran v Gee [1917] HCA 10

Farran v Gee [1917] HCA 10

A person who is not a registered pharmacist and acts as a dispensing chemist, as shown by dispensing prescribed medicine and representing himself as such, is taken to 'pretend' to be a dispensing chemist within the meaning of sec. 17 of the Pharmacy Act 1897 (NSW). The findings of fact supported the conviction and special leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Parties
Defendant: Michael Joseph Farran; Informant: Samuel Gee
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 April 1917
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court From the Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Outcome
Special leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Pharmacy Regulation, False Representation as Pharmacist, Interpretation of 'pretend' Under Pharmacy Act 1897
Criminal Law Health Law Pharmacy Regulation False Representation as Pharmacist Interpretation of 'pretend' Under Pharmacy Act 1897

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Joseph Farran

Defendant

Samuel Gee

Informant

Procedural Posture

Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Application for Special Leave to Appeal to the High Court From the Decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a person who is not a registered pharmacist, but dispenses medicine as a 'dispensing chemist', 'pretends' to be a registered pharmacist under the Pharmacy Act 1897 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether evidence supported the finding that defendant pretended to be a dispensing chemist within the meaning of the Act

Ratio Decidendi

A person who is not a registered pharmacist and acts as a dispensing chemist, as shown by dispensing prescribed medicine and representing himself as such, is taken to 'pretend' to be a dispensing chemist within the meaning of sec. 17 of the Pharmacy Act 1897 (NSW). The findings of fact supported the conviction and special leave to appeal was therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Special leave to appeal refused