Pharmacy Regulations (Repeal) (ACT)

The case concerned the validity of the Pharmacy Regulations (Repeal) (ACT) 1985 No. 4, which was made under the Pharmacy Ordinance 1931. The dispute arose when a pharmacy owner challenged the repeal of the Pharmacy Regulations, arguing that the repeal was not within the power of the Minister for Health. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory. The central legal issue was whether the Minister had the authority to repeal the Pharmacy Regulations under the Pharmacy Ordinance 1931. The pharmacy owner argued that the repeal was beyond the scope of the enabling legislation and thus invalid.

The court examined the provisions of the Pharmacy Ordinance 1931 and the manner in which the regulations were repealed. The court noted that the enabling legislation granted the Minister for Health the authority to make regulations necessary or convenient for carrying out or securing the efficient working of the Act. The court held that the power to repeal existing regulations was implicitly included within this broad authority. Therefore, the court found that the Minister had the authority to repeal the Pharmacy Regulations as the repeal was necessary and convenient for the efficient working of the Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the pharmacy owner's challenge, upholding the validity of the repeal.

In conclusion, the court upheld the validity of the Pharmacy Regulations (Repeal) (ACT) 1985 No. 4, affirming the Minister's authority to repeal the regulations under the Pharmacy Ordinance 1931. The pharmacy owner's challenge was dismissed, and the repeal was confirmed as lawful.