Ranallo v The Australian Community Pharmacy Authority

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.