Assarapin v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority

In the Federal Court of Australia, the applicants, who are pharmacists, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (the Authority) regarding the approval of premises for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits. The applicants argued that the Authority had made an error of law in finding that the approved premises had ceased to be within a "facility" as defined in the National Health (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority Rules) Determination 2011, following the demolition of the building in which the premises were located. The applicants further contended that they were aggrieved by the Authority's decision, which entitled them to seek judicial review.

The court considered whether the Authority's decision involved an error of law and whether the applicants had standing to bring the proceedings. The court found that the Authority's decision involved a mixed question of fact and law, and that the Authority had not erred in finding that the approved premises were no longer within a facility. The court held that the rules did not require approved premises to remain within a facility indefinitely and that it would be inappropriate to interpret the rules on such a basis. The court also concluded that the applicants had standing to bring the proceedings, as they were pharmacists who supplied pharmaceutical benefits at premises located within 500 metres of the approved premises.

The application for judicial review was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay 80% of the second respondent's costs. The court did not make any order as to the costs of the Authority or the Minister. The court held that the applicants had not succeeded in obtaining any of the relief they sought, but had achieved some success in relation to the second respondent's notice of objection to competency. The court considered this to be an appropriate basis for ordering the applicants to pay a proportion of the second respondent's costs.

The final orders of the court were: (1) the application be dismissed; (2) the applicants pay 80% of the second respondent's costs; and (3) there be no other order as to costs. Entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.