Crowley v Holmes [2003] FCA 414

Crowley v Holmes [2003] FCA 414

The application for interlocutory relief was dismissed because the applicant did not establish a serious question to be tried. The two referrals concerned separate periods and there was no statutory warrant or requirement that Adjudicative Referral No 366 be heard by the committee constituted for Adjudicative Referral No 296. The inconvenience, cost, and asserted overlap in an exceptional circumstances defence did not vitiate the decisions to make Investigative Referral No 366 or Adjudicative Referral No 366. The inclusion of practice statistics from outside the defined referral period did not show that the Committee would inquire beyond the specified period or give rise to a reasonable...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief in a Proceeding Challenging Investigative and Adjudicative Referrals Under the Health Insurance Act 1973 (cth) / Interlocutory Application Before Proposed Hearing by Professional Services Review Committee No 366
Outcome
Application for interlocutory relief dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'professional Services Review Scheme' 'health Insurance Act 1973 (cth)' 'investigative Referral' 'adjudicative Referral' 'inappropriate Practice' 'apprehended Bias' 'ultra Vires' 'relevant Considerations' 'misuse of Power']
['practice and Procedure' 'health Law' 'administrative Law'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'professional Services Review Scheme' 'health Insurance Act 1973 (cth)' 'investigative Referral' 'adjudicative Referral' 'inappropriate Practice' 'apprehended Bias' 'ultra Vires' 'relevant Considerations' 'misuse of Power']

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

Application for Interlocutory Injunctive Relief in a Proceeding Challenging Investigative and Adjudicative Referrals Under the Health Insurance Act 1973 (cth) / Interlocutory Application Before Proposed Hearing by Professional Services Review Committee No 366

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether there was a serious question to be tried as to the invalidity of Adjudicative Referral No 366 or Investigative Referral No 366.' "Whether the Commission's decision to make separate investigative referrals, and the Director's decision to establish a separate committee for Adjudicative Referral No 366, were ultra vires, improperly made, or a misuse of power." 'Whether inclusion of practice statistics from outside the referral period invalidated the referrals or gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in Professional Services Review Committee No 366.' 'Whether interlocutory relief should restrain the Committee from hearing Adjudicative Referral No 366 pending further hearing or order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for interlocutory relief was dismissed because the applicant did not establish a serious question to be tried. The two referrals concerned separate periods and there was no statutory warrant or requirement that Adjudicative Referral No 366 be heard by the committee constituted for Adjudicative Referral No 296. The inconvenience, cost, and asserted overlap in an exceptional circumstances defence did not vitiate the decisions to make Investigative Referral No 366 or Adjudicative Referral No 366. The inclusion of practice statistics from outside the defined referral period did not show that the Committee would inquire beyond the specified period or give rise to a reasonable...

Court Disposition

Application for interlocutory relief dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The application for interlocutory relief be dismissed.' 'The costs of the application for interlocutory relief and the hearing on 30 April 2003 be reserved for further consideration.']