Crowley v Holmes - [2003] FCA 414

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Crowley v Holmes [2003] FCA 414
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Health Law – interlocutory application – referrals made by Health Insurance Commission and Director of Professional Services Review under the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) relating to conduct of medical practitioner – Professional Services Review Committee scheduled a hearing to assess whether conduct constituted “engaging in inappropriate practice” within the meaning of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) – earlier referrals made in relation to conduct of the medical practitioner at a different period of time before a differently constituted Committee – separate proceeding before the Court in relation to earlier referral, on appeal – Committee restrained from hearing matters relating to earlier referral until determination of that appeal – whether serious question to be tried – whether inclusion of practice statistics relating to periods outside the period proscribed by the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) invalidated the referrals or created an apprehension of bias in the Committee – whether decisions of the Commission and Director leading to multiple hearings before differently constituted Committees were invalid as ultra vires to the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth), improperly made or a misuse of power.
PAUL DAVID CROWLEY v ALAN JOHN HOLMES & ORS
V 273 of 2003
GOLDBERG J
1 MAY 2003
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 273 of 2003

BETWEEN:

PAUL DAVID CROWLEY
Applicant

AND:

ALAN JOHN HOLMES
(in his capacity as the Director of Professional Services Review)

First Respondent

BRUCE INGRAM

Second Respondent

JOHN KISS

Third Respondent

CHRISTOPHER BROWN

Fourth Respondent

HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION
Fifth Respondent

JUDGE:

GOLDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

1 MAY 2003

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for interlocutory relief be dismissed.
2.The costs of the application for interlocutory relief and the hearing on 30 April 2003 be reserved for further consideration.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 273 of 2003

BETWEEN:

PAUL DAVID CROWLEY
Applicant

AND:

ALAN JOHN HOLMES
(in his capacity as the Director of Professional Services Review)

First Respondent

BRUCE INGRAM

Second Respondent

JOHN KISS

Third Respondent

CHRISTOPHER BROWN

Fourth Respondent

HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION
Fifth Respondent

JUDGE:

GOLDBERG J

DATE:

1 MAY 2003

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The applicant is a medical practitioner who carries on a general practice in Lowood in Queensland. The first respondent is the Director of Professional Services Review (“the Director”) appointed under the provisions of s 83 of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) (“the Act”).
The second, third and fourth respondents are the members of the Professional Services Review Committee No 366 (“the Committee”) established by the Director on or about 20 December 2002 pursuant to the provisions of the Pt VAA of the Act.
The fifth respondent is the Health Insurance Commission (“the Commission”) established pursuant to the provisions of the Act which is able, pursuant to s 86…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Crowley v Holmes

Details

AGLC: Crowley v Holmes [2003] FCA 414
Case: [2003] FCA 414
Decision Date: 1 MAY 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Crowley v Holmes is a case involving a dispute over an alleged contract for the sale of a property in Sydney. The applicant, Crowley, sought an interlocutory injunction to restrain the respondent, Holmes, from proceeding with the sale of the property until the substantive claim was determined. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether Crowley had established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction. The court was required to consider whether Crowley had demonstrated that there was a serious question to be tried, and that the balance of convenience favoured the grant of an injunction. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the granting of an injunction would cause significant prejudice to Holmes.

The court found that Crowley had not made out a case for interlocutory relief. The evidence presented by Crowley was not sufficient to establish a serious question to be tried, and the balance of convenience did not favour the grant of an injunction. Furthermore, the court determined that the granting of an injunction would cause significant prejudice to Holmes, as it would prevent him from proceeding with the sale of the property. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for interlocutory relief and reserved the costs of the application and the hearing for further consideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for interlocutory relief be dismissed.

2. The costs of the application for interlocutory relief and the hearing on 30 April 2003 be reserved for further consideration.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GOLDBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GOLDBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 273 of 2003

BETWEEN:	PAUL DAVID CROWLEY Applicant
AND:	ALAN JOHN HOLMES (in his capacity as the Director of Professional Services Review) First Respondent BRUCE INGRAM Second Respondent JOHN KISS Third Respondent CHRISTOPHER BROWN Fourth Respondent HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION Fifth Respondent
JUDGE:	GOLDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 MAY 2003
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE

JUDGE:	GOLDBERG J
DATE:	1 MAY 2003
PLACE:	MELBOURNE