M House Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Health and Aged Care
Case
•
[2023] FCA 768
•7 July 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
M House Pty Ltd v Secretary, Department of Health and Aged Care [2023] FCA 768
[2023] FCA 768
7 July 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
M House Pty Ltd sought judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Aged Care to release information about the Applicant’s therapeutic goods on the Therapeutic Goods Administration's website. The Applicant argued that the decision was not authorised under s 61(5C) of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth). The Applicant further submitted that, if the decision was authorised, it was unreasonable.
The Applicant pressed two grounds for review of the decision. The primary ground pressed by the Applicant was that the decision was not authorised by s 61(5C) of the Act. If the Court determined that the decision was authorised by s 61(5C) of the Act, the Applicant alternatively contended that the decision was an unreasonable exercise of power under s 61(5C) of the Act. The Applicant argued that the release of information was not authorised because the information was obtained from sampling and testing undertaken expressly not in compliance with Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 (Cth). The Respondent asserted a non-statutory capacity to undertake sampling and testing of therapeutic goods. The Court found that the decision was not authorised by s 61(5C) of the Act because the information was obtained from sampling and testing undertaken expressly not in compliance with Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 (Cth). The Court concluded that the release of information was not authorised under s 61(5C) of the Act. The Court did not need to consider the alternative ground of unreasonableness. The Applicant’s application for review was therefore successful. The Court ordered that within seven days, the parties confer and file proposed agreed orders giving effect to the reasons of the Court. If the parties were unable to agree proposed orders, each party was to file separate orders and written submissions in support of their proposed orders of no more than two pages within seven days. The final orders of the Court would be determined on the papers.
The Applicant pressed two grounds for review of the decision. The primary ground pressed by the Applicant was that the decision was not authorised by s 61(5C) of the Act. If the Court determined that the decision was authorised by s 61(5C) of the Act, the Applicant alternatively contended that the decision was an unreasonable exercise of power under s 61(5C) of the Act. The Applicant argued that the release of information was not authorised because the information was obtained from sampling and testing undertaken expressly not in compliance with Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 (Cth). The Respondent asserted a non-statutory capacity to undertake sampling and testing of therapeutic goods. The Court found that the decision was not authorised by s 61(5C) of the Act because the information was obtained from sampling and testing undertaken expressly not in compliance with Therapeutic Goods Regulations 1990 (Cth). The Court concluded that the release of information was not authorised under s 61(5C) of the Act. The Court did not need to consider the alternative ground of unreasonableness. The Applicant’s application for review was therefore successful. The Court ordered that within seven days, the parties confer and file proposed agreed orders giving effect to the reasons of the Court. If the parties were unable to agree proposed orders, each party was to file separate orders and written submissions in support of their proposed orders of no more than two pages within seven days. The final orders of the Court would be determined on the papers.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Jurisdiction
-
Legitimate Expectation
-
Proportionality
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Raymon v Professional Services Review Committee No 1280 [2024] FCA 491
Cases Citing This Decision
6
Secretary, Department of Health and Aged Care v M House Pty Ltd
[2024] FCAFC 71
Raymon v Professional Services Review Committee No 1280
[2024] FCA 49
Cases Cited
19
Statutory Material Cited
8
Davis v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs
[2023] HCA 10