Australasian College of Cosmetic Surgery Limited v Australian Medical Council Limited

The Australasian College of Cosmetic Surgery Limited (the College) sought judicial review of a decision of the Australian Medical Council Limited (the AMC) regarding the College's application for recognition of a new medical specialty of cosmetic medical practice. The College argued that the review process was unlawful, unlawfully made, or ultra vires, and sought a declaration to this effect. The AMC, established to accredit medical schools and courses and administer national examinations for overseas trained doctors, argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter. The College also sought an injunction to restrain the AMC from acting on its review of the College's application.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it had jurisdiction to review the AMC's decision. The Court considered whether the matter arose under a law of the Commonwealth, and whether the review was unlawful, unlawfully made, or ultra vires. The Court also considered whether the College's application was justiciable, and whether the matter fell within the scope of R v Panel on Take-overs and Mergers, Ex parte Datafin Plc. The Court found that the matter was not justiciable, as the AMC had completed its functions under the Guidelines and there was no relevant threatened action to be restrained. The Court also found that the review was not unlawful, unlawfully made, or ultra vires.

The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the review was not unlawful, unlawfully made, or ultra vires. The Court found that the AMC's functions under the Guidelines were exhausted, and that there was no relevant threatened action to be restrained. The Court also found that the College's application was not justiciable, as the matter did not give rise to a right in the College. The Court concluded that even if it had jurisdiction, it would not make a declaration to the effect that the review was unlawful, unlawfully made, or ultra vires, as there would be no point in doing so.

The Court ordered that the objection to competency be upheld, the application be dismissed, and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs. The Court found that the College's application was not justiciable, and that the review was not unlawful, unlawfully made, or ultra vires. The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter, and that there was no basis for making a declaration to the effect that the review was unlawful, unlawfully made, or ultra vires.