Alexander v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority

Link copied
Case Copied 46 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Alexander v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2010] FCA 189

Citation: Alexander v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2010] FCA 189
Parties:

MICHAEL ALEXANDER, NARASIM ANAND RAJU and PHILIP HARDY v THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY PHARMACY AUTHORITY, PHILIP COLASANTE, ADRIAN SEBASTIANO and ADAM SEBASTIANO

File number(s): VID 881 of 2009
Judge: BROMBERG J
Date of judgment: 5 March 2010
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – Judicial Review – Whether failure to take into account relevant considerations –  Obligation to provide reasons for decision – Failure of reasons to deal with constituent facts to an ultimate fact – Whether omission from statement of reasons justifies an inference that matter not taken into account.
Legislation: Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s 43(2B)
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) ss 3, 5 and 13
National Health Act 1953 (Cth), Part VII, ss 89, 90, 99J, 99K and 99N
National Health (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority Rules) Determination 2006, Schedule 1, ss 6 and 9, Item 110, Item 201, Schedule 2, Items 301 and 302 and Schedule 3.
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 430
Cases cited:

Ansett Transport v Wraith (1983) 48 ALR 500
Appellant V324 of 2004 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] FCAFC 259
ARM Constructions v Commissioner of Taxation (1986) 10 FCR 197
ARM Constructions Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (1986) 65 ALR 343
Carlisle Homes Pty Ltd v Barrett Property Group Pty Limited [2009] FCAFC 31
Civil Aviation Safety Authority v Central Aviation Pty Ltd (2009) 253 ALR 263
Collins v Repatriation Commission (1980) 32 ALR 581
Dennis Wilcox Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 79 ALR 267
Department of Health and Ageing and Another (2009) 178 FCR 161
Dodds v Comcare Australia (1993) 31 ALD 690
Dornan v Riordan (1990) 24 FCR 564
Faulkner v Conwell (1989) 21 FCR 41
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Cainero (1988) 15 ALD 368
Hunter v Transport Accident Commission (2005) 43 MVR 130
Kentucky Fried Chicken Pty Ltd v Gantidis (1979) 140 CLR 675
Mees v Kemp (2005) 141 FCR 385
Minister for Aboriginal Affairs v Peko-Wallsend Limited (1986) 162 CLR 24
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Taveli (1990) 23 FCR 162
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Yusuf (2001) 206 CLR 323
Oak Valley v ATSIC (1999) 98 FCR 1
Our Town FM Pty Ltd v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal (1987) 16 FCR 465
Powell v Evreniades (1989) 21 FCR 252
R v Australian Broadcasting Tribunal; ex parte Hardiman (1980) 144 CLR 13
Re MIMIA; ex Parte Palme (2003) 216 CLR 212
Repatriation Commission v O’Brien (1985) 155 CLR 422
Ross v Costigan (1982) 59 FLR 184
Steed v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1981) 37 ALR 620
Sullivan v Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323
Terry White Chemists Australia Fair v Secretary,
Traill v McRae [2002] FCAFC 235
Turner v Minister for Immigration (1981) 35…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Alexander v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2010] FCA 189
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Alexander v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority involved the applicant, Mr Alexander, seeking judicial review of a decision made by the respondent, the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (ACPA). The dispute centred on the ACPA's decision to refuse Mr Alexander's application for registration as a pharmacist. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant argued that the ACPA failed to take into account relevant considerations, did not provide adequate reasons for its decision, and that the reasons provided were insufficient in addressing the constituent facts to the ultimate decision.

The legal issues that the court needed to address included whether the ACPA failed to consider relevant matters, whether it had an obligation to provide reasons for its decision, and whether the failure of the reasons to deal with certain facts justified an inference that those facts were not taken into account. The applicant contended that the ACPA's reasons did not adequately address certain facts that were relevant to the decision, and as such, it could be inferred that those facts were not considered in the decision-making process.

In its judgment, the court examined the relevant statutory provisions and the principles of administrative law governing the provision of reasons for decisions. It held that the ACPA was not required to address every single fact or issue that might be relevant to the decision, but rather, it needed to provide reasons that demonstrate a logical connection between the facts found and the ultimate decision. The court found that the ACPA had provided sufficient reasons for its decision, and that the reasons adequately addressed the relevant facts to justify the outcome. The court held that the failure to explicitly mention certain facts did not mean they were not taken into account, and therefore the applicant's challenge to the decision failed.

The court dismissed the application for judicial review. It ordered that the parties file and serve submissions as to costs within seven days of the publication of the reasons for judgment. This order required the parties to address the issue of costs associated with the litigation, ensuring that the successful party could seek reimbursement for reasonable expenses incurred during the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. On or before 7 days after the publication of the Reasons for Judgment in this matter, the parties file and serve submissions as to costs.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.