Samad v District Court of New South Wales

The appeal concerned the cancellation of a licence to supply methadone granted to Barbara Street Clinic Pty Ltd (BSC). The claimants, Dr and Mrs Samad, were the sole shareholders of BSC. The Director-General of the Department of Health had decided to cancel BSC's licence, citing disruption to the amenity of the local area and internal disputes within the company. The claimants appealed this decision to the District Court, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the cancellation of the licence.

The central legal issues before the court were the proper interpretation of clause 149 of the Regulations, which outlines the grounds for suspension or cancellation of a licence, and specifically the scope of the Director-General's power under clause 149(f) to cancel a licence where the supply of methadone is causing disruption to the amenity of the area. The court was also required to consider whether the Director-General's decision was affected by the admission of hearsay evidence.

The court reasoned that the word "may" in clause 149(f) conferred a discretion on the Director-General, rather than imposing a mandatory obligation, to cancel a licence upon the specified ground. It held that the Director-General was entitled to consider the report from the Review Committee, even if it contained hearsay, as part of the material upon which to form an opinion regarding disruption to the amenity of the area. The court found that the Director-General had properly exercised his discretion, taking into account the disruption caused by the clinic and the internal disputes within BSC, which further supported the view that the issues would be unable to be resolved.

The appeal was dismissed, and the order of the District Court confirming the cancellation of the licence was upheld.