Australian Society of Ophthalmologists v Optometry Board of Australia

The Australian Society of Ophthalmologists and the Ophthalmic Surgeons Association of Australia brought an action against the Optometry Board of Australia. They sought to challenge instruments that were purportedly made under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, on the basis that the changes were outside the scope of the power of the National Law. The Board responded by arguing that the applicants had no standing to bring the claim, as they had no special interest in the subject matter beyond that of any other member of the public. The dispute was brought before the Federal Court of Australia, where the central legal issues were whether the applicants had a special interest in the subject matter and whether they had standing to bring the claim.

The Court examined the applicants' roles and interests, considering the historical role of the Ophthalmic Surgeons Association of Australia in setting standards of patient care in ophthalmology, and the medico-political interests represented by the Australian Society of Ophthalmologists. The Court concluded that the applicants had a special interest in the subject matter, as they were directly involved in the regulation of the ophthalmic profession and had a vested interest in the standards and practices that govern the profession. As such, the applicants had standing to bring the claim, and the Board's application to dismiss the matter was dismissed.

The Court's decision was based on the applicants' direct involvement in the ophthalmic profession and their historical role in setting standards of patient care. The Court held that this involvement and history gave the applicants a special interest in the subject matter of the dispute, and thus standing to bring the claim. The Court found that the applicants were not merely members of the public with a general interest in the matter, but had a specific and direct interest in the regulation of the ophthalmic profession. As such, the Board's application to dismiss the matter was dismissed, and the applicants' challenge to the instruments made under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law could proceed.

The final orders of the Court were that the application by the respondent filed 26 August 2013 is dismissed. This outcome allows the applicants to continue with their challenge to the instruments made under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, as they have been found to have standing to bring the claim.