Ranallo v The Australian Community Pharmacy Authority

Link copied
Case Copied 29 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Ranallo v The Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2009] FCA 113

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for review of decision of Australian Community Pharmacy Authority – Authority recommended that the applicant not be approved to supply pharmaceutical benefits from proposed premises – approval denied because premises did not have the ‘equivalent of at least 8 full-time prescribing medical practitioners’ practising at the Centre – error of law alleged – interpretation of terms ‘equivalent’ and ‘full-time’ – terms held to be directed at hours worked not output

Held:  the application be dismissed.

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 15AA
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) s 5(1)(f)
National Health Act 1953 (Cth) ss 90, 99K, 99L

Acts Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW) s 33

National Health (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority Rules) Determination 2006 ss 6, 9, 10

Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (1920) 28 CLR 129
Amber-Jane Ranallo v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2008] AATA 533
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club (1997) 187 CLR 384
Cody v J H Nelson Pty Ltd (1947) 74 CLR 629
Cooper Brookes (Wollongong) Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 147 CLR 297
Forsythe v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (2007) 231 CLR 531
Harradine v Secretary, Department of Social Security (1989) 25 FCR 35
Lane and Others v Arrowcrest Group Pty Limited (t/a ROH Alloy Wheels) (1990) 27 FCR 427
Marshall v Director-General, Department of Transport (2001) 205 CLR 603
Miller v The Commonwealth (1904) 1 CLR 668
Mills v Meeking (1990) 169 CLR 214
Minister Administering the Crown Lands Act v NSW Aboriginal Land Council (2008) 249 ALR 602
Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355
Re Higham (1986) 5 ACLC 352
Saraswati v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 1
Thompson and James v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [1996] AATA 367
Thompson v Judge Byrne (1999) 196 CLR 141
Wacal Developments Pty Ltd v Realty Developments Pty Ltd (1978) 140 CLR 503

AMBER-JANE RANALLO v THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY PHARMACY AUTHORITY

WAD 197 of 2008

MCKERRACHER J
19 FEBRUARY 2009
PERTH


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAD 197 of 2008
BETWEEN:

AMBER-JANE RANALLO
Applicant
AND:

THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY PHARMACY AUTHORITY
Respondent

JUDGE:

MCKERRACHER J

DATE OF ORDER:

19 FEBRUARY 2009

WHERE MADE:

PERTH

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application be dismissed.

2.The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed if not agreed. 

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


The text of entered orders can be located using eSearch on the Court’s website.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

WAD 197 of 2008
BETWEEN:

AMBER-JANE RANALLO
Applicant
AND:

THE AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY PHARMACY AUTHORITY
Respondent

JUDGE:

MCKERRACHER J

DATE:

19 FEBRUARY 2009

PLACE:

PERTH

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

  1. The applicant (Ms Ranallo) seeks judicial review of a decision of the respondent…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ranallo v The 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2009] FCA 113
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ms Ranallo has applied for judicial review of a decision by the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (the Authority) to reject her application for a Community Pharmacy Approval. The basis of the application is that the Authority erred in law in its interpretation of the relevant rules. The matter was heard and dismissed by Perram J of the Federal Court. The sole issue in the case was whether the Authority and the Tribunal had erred in law in their interpretation of the relevant rules such that Ms Ranallo’s application was rejected. The passage in question required the Authority to be satisfied that on the date the application was made, and for the 6 months before that date, the equivalent of at least 8 full-time prescribing medical practitioners had been practising at the centre. The Authority had interpreted this to mean that there needed to be medical practitioners working full-time hours, which was held to mean at least 38 hours per week. Ms Ranallo argued that the Authority had adopted an impermissibly narrow interpretation of the phrase ‘full-time’ and had failed to consider the output of the practitioners. The Court held that the Authority had not erred in law. It found that the Authority and the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the relevant rules and that Ms Ranallo’s argument was contrary to the ordinary meaning of the phrase ‘full-time’. The Court dismissed the application and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. The applicant is to pay the respondent’s costs to be taxed if not agreed.

Note:

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

MCKERRACHER J
Ms Ranallo applies pursuant to s 5(1)(f) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (the ADJR Act) which relevantly provides:5 Applications for review of decisions(1)A person who is aggrieved by a decision to which this Act applies that is made after the commencement of this Act may apply to the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court for an order of review in respect of the decision on any one or more of the following grounds:…(f)that the decision involved an error of law, whether or not the error appears on the record of the decision; … The only ground for review which has been advanced is that the Authority made an error of law. If there has not been an error of law, no intervention is appropriate. Mason CJ in Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 emphasised that the ADJR Act was not intended to change the position of the Federal Court as having the obligation to review the legality, not the merits, of a decision. His Honour said at 341: The Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) (the AAT Act) provides specifically for review on the merits by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is scarcely to be supposed that the Parliament, in so providing, nevertheless intended to invest the Federal Court with a similar jurisdiction under the AD(JR) Act, for that would be the effect of that Act if it were to confer jurisdiction to review findings of fact generally. Indeed, the concept of judicial review which finds literal expression in the title of the AD(JR) Act and in its operative provisions tells against the existence of such a wide jurisdiction.THE ISSUES This application raises a succinct point in relation to the relevant rules. Ms Ranallo contends that the Authority and the Tribunal adopted an interpretation of the rules which was too restrictive and that it was only that impermissibly restrictive approach that led to Ms Ranallo’s application being rejected. Determination of Ms Ranallo’s application requires analysis of a passage in the National Health (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority Rules) Determination 2006 (the Rules) in par 3(a) of item 112 in these terms:3. The Authority is satisfied that:(a)on the date the application is made and for the 6 months before that date, the equivalent of at least 8 full‑time prescribing medical practitioners have been practising at the centre; and …(emphasis added) In Ranallo v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2008] AATA 533, the Tribunal had held that the noun ‘equivalent’ bears its ordinary meaning, being that which is ‘equal in value, measure, force, effect, significance, etc’, but that the phrase ‘the equivalent of’ in par 3(a) ‘relates to full-time working hours, and does not relate to, or include consideration of, work output, including the number of patient attendances and medical services’ (at [37]). It is common ground that for the whole of the relevant 6 month period there were in fact six medical practitioners practising at the Centre and each of those was a prescribing medical practitioner. The Authority applied the earlier decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) dealing with Ms Ranallo’s first application (Amber-Jane Ranallo [2008] AATA 533 at [36]) to the effect that the adjective ‘full-time’ was addressed to the working or practising hours of the relevant medical practitioners and not to the volume of work performed as reflected in, amongst other things, the number of patient attendances and medical services carried out by those practitioners. The Authority followed the view expressed by the Tribunal that the adjective ‘full-time’ referred to a medical practitioner who is working on a full-time (as opposed to a part-time) basis, that is, a medical practitioner who is working at least the numbers of hours comprising a normal working week. The Tribunal in Ranallo had accepted that this required a medical practitioner to be working for at least 38 hours per week spread over a normal working week of at least five days.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: MCKERRACHER J

Full text does not contain this section.