I-Med Radiology Network Limited v The Director of Professional Services Review

The case of I-Med Radiology Network Limited v The Director of Professional Services Review involved the applicants, I-Med Radiology Network Limited and I-Med NSW, challenging the validity of a review requested by the Director of Professional Services Review into the provision of services by the applicants. The applicants sought judicial review of the decision to request a review and the validity of notices to produce documents issued under section 89B of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth). The central issue was whether the request for review and the notices to produce were valid under the Health Insurance Act. Specifically, the court had to determine if a jurisdictional precondition to a valid decision to request a review was the provision of services by the person under review during the period specified in the request.

The court examined the statutory framework and the requirement for proof of jurisdictional facts. The applicants argued that the Director’s request for review was invalid because the second applicant, I-Med NSW, did not provide services during the relevant period. The court held that the obligation to prove the factual elements of the cause of action, including jurisdictional facts, lay with the applicants. I-Med NSW provided evidence through an affidavit from their Chief Financial Officer, which included payroll records and payment summaries. However, the court found that the absence of an annexed workers’ compensation policy rendered part of the affidavit inadmissible. The court concluded that I-Med NSW did not prove on the balance of probabilities that the second applicant was not providing services during the specified period, and thus, the request for review was valid.

The Federal Court dismissed the application, finding no jurisdictional error in the Director’s decision to request a review and the validity of the notices to produce. The court ordered that the review of the applicants’ services remain suspended during the proceedings, and the second respondent was restrained from taking any steps pursuant to the notices to produce. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the proceeding. This decision highlights the importance of providing admissible evidence to substantiate claims of jurisdictional error in judicial review proceedings.