Artinian v Commonwealth of Australia

Dr Yacoub Artinian sought judicial review of decisions including the establishment of a Professional Services Review Committee under Part VAA of the Health Insurance Act 1973. Artinian alleged that the Committee members were likely to be biased due to their connections with the Australian Medical Association (AMA). The AMA had opposed medical centres, and Artinian believed this would influence the Committee's impartiality. The court had to determine whether the Committee's composition suggested ostensible bias and if Artinian had an arguable case for interlocutory relief.

The court found that Artinian had not made a timely challenge to the Committee's composition as required by the Act. The court also noted that Artinian had participated in the hearing without objection, further weakening his case. The court examined the AMA's historical opposition to medical centres and a defamation case against the AMA, but concluded that these factors did not establish ostensible bias. The court held that the balance of convenience did not favour Artinian, as the hearing had already commenced. Additionally, the court considered it discretionary to deny relief because Artinian had not used the statutory challenge process.

The court dismissed Artinian's application for interlocutory relief and ordered him to pay the respondents' costs. The court found that Artinian had not shown an arguable case of ostensible bias, had not availed himself of the statutory challenge process, and that the balance of convenience did not support an injunction.