Administrative Appeals Tribunal
DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2008] AATA 533
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )
) No 2007/5069
GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION ) Re AMBER JANE RANALLO Applicant
And
AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY PHARMACY AUTHORITY
Respondent
DECISION
Tribunal Deputy President S D Hotop
Dr P A Staer, MemberDate25 June 2008
PlacePerth
Decision The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
..........[sgd S D Hotop]........
4. On 18 October 2007 the applicant lodged with the Tribunal an application for review of the respondent’s recommendation.
The Relevant Legislation
5. The relevant provisions of the Act are as follows:
“Part VII – Pharmaceutical benefits
…
84 Interpretation
(1) In this part, unless the contrary intention appears:
…
Authority means the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority established under section 99J.
…
90 Approved pharmacists
(1)Subject to this section, the Secretary may, upon application by a pharmacist who is willing to supply pharmaceutical benefits on demand at particular premises, approve that pharmacist for the purpose of supplying pharmaceutical benefits at or from those premises.
…
(3A)Subject to subsections (3AA) and (3AE), an application under this section must be referred to the Authority.
…
99J Establishment of Authority
(1)An Authority is established.
(2)The name of the Authority is the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority.
99K Functions
(1)The functions of the Authority are:
(a)to consider applications under section 90; and
(b)to make, in respect of an application under section 90:
(i)a recommendation whether or not the applicant should be approved under that section in respect of particular premises; and
(ii)if an approval is recommended – recommendations as to the conditions (if any) to which the approval should be subject; and (sic)
(2)In making a recommendation under subsection (1), the Authority must comply with the relevant rules determined by the Minister under section 99L.
(3)All recommendations of the Authority under subsection (1) are to be made to the Secretary.
99L Determination of rules by Minister
(1)The Minister must, by writing, determine the rules subject to which the Authority is to make recommendations under subsection 99K(1).
(2)A determination under subsection (1) is a disallowable instrument for the purposes of section 46A of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.”
6. The relevant provisions of the Determination, which was made under s 99L(1) of the Act, are as follows:
“6 Interpretation
(1) In this Determination:
Act means the National Health Act 1953.
application means an application under section 90 of the Act.
Note This Determination divides applications for approvals in respect of proposed premises into 2 classes:
· applications that involve the cancellation of an existing approval (see Part 1 of Schedule 1); and
· applications that do not involve the cancellation of an existing approval (see Part 2 of Schedule 1).
approved premises means premises in respect of which an approval granted under section 90 of the Act is in force.
…
large medical centre means a medical centre:
(a) that is under single management; and
(b) that…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ranallo and Australian Community Pharmacy Authority and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2008] AATA 533
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue was whether the ACPA was correct in its decision to deny the application. This required an examination of the specific criteria outlined in the Rules and whether Ranallo's proposed premises met these criteria. The Tribunal had to determine if the ACPA's interpretation of the Rules was reasonable and if the decision was justified based on the evidence and legislative requirements.
In affirming the ACPA's decision, the Tribunal found that the proposed premises did not meet the requirements as per the Rules. Specifically, the Tribunal noted that the premises were located within a large medical centre but did not meet the threshold of having at least eight full-time equivalent medical practitioners. Additionally, the Tribunal concluded that the premises could not be used for operating a pharmacy under local government legislation, further justifying the ACPA's refusal. The Tribunal held that these deficiencies were significant and warranted the recommendation that the application not be approved. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision under review.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.