Hala Phcy Pty Ltd and Australian Community Pharmacy Authority

Hala Phcy Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (ACPA) concerning an application for approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits. The dispute centred on whether a particular store, referred to as the Bibina store, qualified as a "supermarket" for the purposes of the relevant Pharmacy Authority Rules.

The primary legal issue before the court was the construction of the definition of "supermarket" as contained within the Pharmacy Authority Rules. Specifically, the court was required to determine the meaning of "range" of foods, beverages, groceries, and other domestic goods in the context of these Rules, and whether the Bibina store met this definition.

Deputy President J W Constance reasoned that the absence of a significant number of categories of goods, rather than the mere omission of specific items like clothes pegs, was determinative of whether a store fell outside the definition of a supermarket. The court considered the context and purpose of the Rules in reaching its conclusion. The decision under review, made by the ACPA on 3 September 2021, was affirmed.