Sadri v Pharmacy Council of New South Wales

In the matter of Sadri v Pharmacy Council of New South Wales, the plaintiff, a pharmacist, challenged the decision of the Pharmacy Council of New South Wales to suspend his registration. The dispute centred on whether the Council's decision-making process correctly adhered to section 150 of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law 2009 (NSW), particularly whether the Council erroneously combined its concerns under both limbs of the section and whether this led to an inappropriate decision to suspend the plaintiff’s registration. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the Council had correctly applied section 150 in its decision-making process, specifically whether the Council impermissibly duplicated matters in both limbs of the section, and whether it combined its concerns expressed under both limbs to decide that it was appropriate to suspend the plaintiff’s registration. The Court also needed to determine whether any errors of law made were material to the outcome of the decision to suspend the plaintiff’s registration.

The Court found that while the Council did not strictly adhere to the separation of concerns required by section 150, this did not constitute a material error affecting the outcome. The Court held that the Council’s ultimate decision to suspend the plaintiff’s registration was appropriate based on the concerns expressed, despite the procedural irregularity. The Court found that the error did not materially affect the decision and accordingly dismissed the summons. The Court emphasised that while procedural compliance is important, the ultimate decision must also be substantively justified.

The final orders of the Court were that the summons was dismissed with no orders as to costs. The Court found no grounds to set aside the Council's decision to suspend the plaintiff’s registration, concluding that the procedural error did not materially impact the outcome.