Ho v Minister for Health [2024] FCA 657

Ho v Minister for Health [2024] FCA 657

The applicants failed to establish that the Minister's consideration of merits at the s 90B(4) stage was contrary to law because the discretion is broad and no implied statutory limitation precludes consideration of the merits at that stage. The prior interpretation in Hanna is not clearly or plainly wrong and is to be followed; the applications are dismissed.

Parties
First Applicant: William Ho; Second Applicant: Louisa Young; First Applicant: Mahmoud Arakji; Second Applicant: Mohamad Arakji; Third Applicant: Ismail Arakji; First Applicant: Nabil Ghosn; Second Applicant: Zappone Lucia; Third Applicant: Vivien Katsavos; Respondent: The Minister for Health
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2024
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Applications / Final Determination (judgment After Hearing)
Outcome
Applications dismissed
Legal Topics
Statutory Construction, Judicial Review, Pharmaceutical Approvals, Ministerial Discretion
Administrative Law Statutory Construction Judicial Review Pharmaceutical Approvals Ministerial Discretion

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

William Ho

First Applicant

Louisa Young

Second Applicant

Mahmoud Arakji

First Applicant

Mohamad Arakji

Second Applicant

Ismail Arakji

Third Applicant

Nabil Ghosn

First Applicant

Zappone Lucia

Second Applicant

Vivien Katsavos

Third Applicant

The Minister for Health

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Applications / Final Determination (judgment After Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Minister misunderstood the statutory test under s 90B(4) of the National Health Act 1953 (Cth) in considering the merits of requests not to consider further exercise of power under s 90A(2)
  2. 2 Whether the earlier decision in Hanna v Minister for Health [2013] FCA 303 was clearly and plainly wrong regarding the scope of Ministerial discretion

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish that the Minister's consideration of merits at the s 90B(4) stage was contrary to law because the discretion is broad and no implied statutory limitation precludes consideration of the merits at that stage. The prior interpretation in Hanna is not clearly or plainly wrong and is to be followed; the applications are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed (in each matter).
  • The applicants are to pay the respondent's costs as agreed or taxed (in each matter).