Darnell v Stonehealth Pty Ltd (No 4)

The case of Darnell v Stonehealth Pty Ltd (No 4) involved an application for judicial review of decisions made by the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority and the Secretary to the Department of Health. The applicant, Darnell, sought to quash the respondents' approval of an application by Stonehealth Pty Ltd, trading as Stonehealth Pharmacy, to supply pharmaceutical benefits at a particular premises. The crux of the dispute hinged on whether a "supermarket" within 500 metres from the proposed pharmacy premises had commenced trading on the date of the application, as required by the relevant legislation and rules.

The legal issues before the court encompassed several key points. Firstly, the court had to determine whether the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority could validly rely on a statutory declaration from a Coles manager that the supermarket opened on the day of the application. Additionally, the court needed to address whether the Authority's decision was influenced by any fraud or misrepresentation by Stonehealth and Coles. The definition of "supermarket" was also a matter of consideration, informed by previous Full Court interpretation in Stonehealth Pty Ltd v ZAA Ventures Pty Ltd.

The court found that the Authority's reliance on the statutory declaration from the Coles manager was valid, as it satisfied the requirements of the relevant rules. The court also dismissed the allegation of fraud against Stonehealth and Coles, noting that the evidence did not substantiate the claim of a "sham" soft opening. The court further held that the Authority was permitted to consider the statutory declaration despite it being sent by a third party, as there was no procedural bar in the rules to prevent this. Consequently, the application for judicial review was dismissed, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondents' costs.