Kastrinakis v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority

The case of Kastrinakis v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority involved the applicants challenging the decisions made by the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority and the Secretary to the Department of Health and Ageing. The applicants sought to establish a pharmacy but were denied approval due to the proximity of their premises to an existing approved pharmacy. The applicants argued that the decisions made by the respondents were flawed and sought judicial review of those decisions. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the respondents had the authority and jurisdiction to make the decisions, whether the decisions were made based on relevant and irrelevant considerations, and whether the respondents followed the procedures required by law. The court found that the respondents did have the authority and jurisdiction to make the decisions, as the minimum distance requirement was an evaluative fact rather than an objective jurisdictional fact. However, the court also found that the respondents had taken into account irrelevant considerations and failed to take into account relevant considerations, and had not followed the procedures required by law. As a result, the court found in favour of the applicants and quashed the decisions made by the respondents.

The court's reasoning was based on a number of factors. Firstly, the court found that the minimum distance requirement was an evaluative fact, rather than an objective jurisdictional fact. This meant that the respondents had the discretion to determine whether the requirement had been met, rather than simply determining whether a factual threshold had been reached. Secondly, the court found that the respondents had taken into account irrelevant considerations, such as the measurement taken from the wrong location on a Google Earth map, and had failed to take into account relevant considerations, such as the actual distance between the proposed premises and the nearest approved premises. Finally, the court found that the respondents had not followed the procedures required by law, as they had not considered the evidence provided by the applicants in accordance with the guidelines set out in the handbook published by the Department of Health and Ageing. As a result, the court quashed the decisions made by the respondents and remitted the matter back to them for reconsideration.