SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd v Chipman [2002] FCA 674

SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd v Chipman [2002] FCA 674

On the assumed facts, SmithKline demonstrated a special interest affected by the first decision. The applicant had made consistent representations to the regulator, faced reputational risk and potential prejudice from the registration of Ausrox, exceeding mere commercial interest. SmithKline therefore had standing to seek both merits and judicial review, and objections based on lack of standing or jurisdiction were disallowed.

Parties
Applicant: SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd; First Respondent: Phillip Chipman (as delegate of the Secretary to the (former) Department of Health and Aged Care); Second Respondent: The Minister for Health and Ageing; Third Respondent: Susan Adler (as delegate of the (former) Minister for Health and Aged Care); Fourth Respondent: SynthON A.U. Pty Ltd; Fifth Respondent: The Secretary to the Department of Health and Ageing
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Judicial Review / Ruling on Objections to Competency and Standing on Preliminary Questions, Prior to Substantive Trial
Outcome
Objections to competency and jurisdiction dismissed.
Legal Topics
Standing to Sue, Interests Affected, Judicial Review, Therapeutic Goods Act, Interpretation of 'person Aggrieved', Preliminary Questions, Federal Court Procedure
Administrative Law Practice and Procedure Standing to Sue Interests Affected Judicial Review Therapeutic Goods Act Interpretation of 'person Aggrieved' Preliminary Questions +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd

Applicant

Phillip Chipman (as delegate of the Secretary to the (former) Department of Health and Aged Care)

First Respondent

The Minister for Health and Ageing

Second Respondent

Susan Adler (as delegate of the (former) Minister for Health and Aged Care)

Third Respondent

SynthON A.U. Pty Ltd

Fourth Respondent

The Secretary to the Department of Health and Ageing

Fifth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Judicial Review / Ruling on Objections to Competency and Standing on Preliminary Questions, Prior to Substantive Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has standing as a 'person whose interests are affected' under s 60(2) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) to seek merits review or judicial review of the registration of a competing pharmaceutical product;
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is a 'person aggrieved' under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth);
  3. 3 Whether a commercial competitor's interest in challenging such a registration suffices to establish standing;

Ratio Decidendi

On the assumed facts, SmithKline demonstrated a special interest affected by the first decision. The applicant had made consistent representations to the regulator, faced reputational risk and potential prejudice from the registration of Ausrox, exceeding mere commercial interest. SmithKline therefore had standing to seek both merits and judicial review, and objections based on lack of standing or jurisdiction were disallowed.

Court Disposition

Objections to competency and jurisdiction dismissed.

Orders

  • Each objection to competency disallowed.
  • Parties to file and serve written submissions on costs by 13 June 2002.