Hill v Keith [2002] FCAFC 7

Hill v Keith [2002] FCAFC 7

The court followed Grey and Tankey in holding that the relevant powers in the Health Insurance Act are not an exercise of judicial power and thus not inconsistent with s 71 of the Constitution; the sole constitutional ground of appeal fails.

Parties
Appellant: Wilvene Lesley Evyline Hill; Respondent: Alan Keith
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Judicial Power, Inappropriate Practice (medical), Professional Disciplinary Proceedings, Validity of Legislation, Health Insurance Act Powers
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Health Law Judicial Power Inappropriate Practice (medical) Professional Disciplinary Proceedings Validity of Legislation Health Insurance Act Powers

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wilvene Lesley Evyline Hill

Appellant

Alan Keith

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether powers conferred by Parts VAA and VA of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) purport to vest judicial power in non-judicial bodies, contrary to s 71 of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether ss 94 to 121 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) are invalid as beyond Commonwealth legislative power

Ratio Decidendi

The court followed Grey and Tankey in holding that the relevant powers in the Health Insurance Act are not an exercise of judicial power and thus not inconsistent with s 71 of the Constitution; the sole constitutional ground of appeal fails.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal.