Attorney General for the State of NSW v Now.com.au Pty Ltd

In the case of Attorney General for the State of New South Wales v Now.com.au Pty Ltd, the court was tasked with interpreting the meaning of "pecuniary interest" in section 25 of the Pharmacy Act 1964. The respondent, Now.com.au Pty Ltd, operated a pharmacy through a subsidiary company. The dispute centred on whether the respondent's shareholder, who held a 50% stake in the parent company, had a pecuniary interest in the pharmacy business. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Attorney General argued that the shareholder's interest constituted a pecuniary interest, which would disqualify the respondent from holding a pharmacy licence.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the term "pecuniary interest" as it appeared in section 25 of the Pharmacy Act 1964. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether a shareholder's financial stake in a company that owns and operates a pharmacy constituted a pecuniary interest in the pharmacy itself. The court had to consider whether the shareholder's ability to control the company and the potential for financial benefit were sufficient to establish a pecuniary interest. The court also had to assess whether the shareholder's interest in the parent company translated into a controlling interest in the pharmacy business.

In addressing the legal issues, the court held that a mere shareholding in a company that owns and operates a pharmacy was not, in itself, sufficient to constitute a pecuniary interest. Instead, the court found that the totality of circumstances must be considered to determine whether a shareholder holds a controlling interest in the pharmacy. The court emphasised that where a shareholder is in a position to control the company and indicates an intention to do so for probable financial benefit, the shareholder holds a pecuniary interest. The court found that the respondent's shareholder did not have a controlling interest in the pharmacy business, as there was no evidence that the shareholder exercised control over the pharmacy operations or intended to do so for financial gain. Consequently, the respondent did not hold a pecuniary interest in the pharmacy, and the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court confirmed that the respondent did not hold a pecuniary interest in the pharmacy business, and the appeal by the Attorney General was dismissed with costs. The court's decision clarified the scope of the term "pecuniary interest" in the context of the Pharmacy Act 1964, providing guidance for future cases involving shareholders and pharmacy operations.