Lucas v Secretary, Department of Health [2020] FCA 1603

Lucas v Secretary, Department of Health [2020] FCA 1603

The Bayfield approval was invalid because the unit 2 application was expressly made by Ms Blake and Ms Fox in their own right and could not be treated unilaterally as an application by Bayfield, which was the approved pharmacist for unit 1. It was also invalid because unit 2 was physically separate from unit 1, separated by common property and not physically directly connected or integrated with unit 1, and therefore the application did not arise out of an expansion of unit 1 within s 90(3AE). Because the Bayfield approval was invalid, the refusal of Mr Lucas's application, which depended on treating the part of unit 2 as part of Bayfield's approved premises, also had to be quashed and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Applications for Judicial Review of Decisions Under S 90 of the National Health Act 1953 (cth) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Both applications succeeded. The Bayfield approval and the refusal decision were quashed, and both matters were remitted to the Secretary to be determined according to law.
Legal Topics
['approval to Supply Pharmaceutical Benefits' 'pharmacy Location Rules' 'jurisdictional Error' 'expansion of Approved Pharmacy Premises' 'australian Community Pharmacy Authority Recommendations']
['administrative Law' 'statutory Interpretation' 'health Law'] ['approval to Supply Pharmaceutical Benefits' 'pharmacy Location Rules' 'jurisdictional Error' 'expansion of Approved Pharmacy Premises' 'australian Community Pharmacy Authority Recommendations']

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

Applications for Judicial Review of Decisions Under S 90 of the National Health Act 1953 (cth) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the unit 2 application, if made by Ms Blake and Ms Fox, was a valid application.' 'Whether the unit 2 application fell within s 90(3AE) of the National Health Act 1953 (Cth) as an expansion of unit 1.' "Whether the delegate had power under s 90(3B) to exercise the Secretary's discretion to refuse Mr Lucas's application for failure to comply with item 124 of the Rules." "Whether the delegate lacked jurisdiction to find that Mr Lucas's application did not comply with item 124 because the entrance to unit 2 was not a public entrance to the approved premises within the meaning of that item."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Bayfield approval was invalid because the unit 2 application was expressly made by Ms Blake and Ms Fox in their own right and could not be treated unilaterally as an application by Bayfield, which was the approved pharmacist for unit 1. It was also invalid because unit 2 was physically separate from unit 1, separated by common property and not physically directly connected or integrated with unit 1, and therefore the application did not arise out of an expansion of unit 1 within s 90(3AE). Because the Bayfield approval was invalid, the refusal of Mr Lucas's application, which depended on treating the part of unit 2 as part of Bayfield's approved premises, also had to be quashed and...

Court Disposition

Both applications succeeded. The Bayfield approval and the refusal decision were quashed, and both matters were remitted to the Secretary to be determined according to law.

Orders

  • ["In NSD 682 of 2020, the respondent's decision made on 8 May 2020 to refuse the applicant's application under s 90 of the National Health Act 1953 (Cth) be quashed, and the matter be remitted to the respondent to be determined according to law." "In NSD 682 of 2020, the respondent pay the applicant's costs." "In...