Crowe & Ors v The Commonwealth of Australia

Reginald Chester Crowe and Extended Hours Pharmacies (the applicants) sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against the Commonwealth of Australia and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal (the respondents). The dispute concerned the interpretation of provisions within the *National Health Act* relating to the determination of the "Commonwealth price" for pharmaceutical benefits supplied by pharmacists.

The central legal issue before the Court was the proper construction of section 99(1)(a) of the *National Health Act*, which defines the "Commonwealth price" as that ascertained in accordance with a determination in force under section 98B(1). This required the Court to consider the function of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Remuneration Tribunal under section 98B(1) and the directions it must follow when determining the manner in which the Commonwealth price is to be ascertained, as outlined in section 98B(2).

The applicants argued that the language of section 99(1)(a) dictated a specific method for ascertaining the Commonwealth price. The Court was required to examine how the Tribunal's determination under section 98B(1) interacted with the entitlement of pharmacists to be paid by the Commonwealth under section 99(2). The Tribunal's obligation to take an "approved price" or "basic wholesale price" as a basis, and to provide for the addition of fees and other amounts, was central to this analysis.