Samad v District Court of New South Wales

The case of *Samad v District Court of New South Wales* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning the interpretation of a regulation governing the suspension or cancellation of a licence to supply a drug of addiction. The appellant sought to quash decisions made by the District Court and the Court of Appeal, which had upheld the Director-General of the Department of Health's interpretation of the relevant provision.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether clause 149 of the *Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 1994* (NSW) conferred upon the Director-General a mandatory power to suspend or cancel a licence once one of the specified grounds was established, or if it merely granted a discretion that could be exercised in favour of not cancelling the licence. This involved determining whether the words "may suspend or cancel" indicated a power that was obligatory in the circumstances, or one that allowed for a weighing of considerations.

The High Court found that the Court of Appeal had erred in its construction of clause 149. The Court reasoned that the provision, when properly understood, did not compel the Director-General to exercise the power of cancellation simply because a ground for cancellation was made out. Instead, it conferred a discretion that required consideration of various factors, including the impact on the licensee, users, and the public interest. The Court of Appeal had incorrectly concluded that the District Court judge had erred in law by construing the provision as granting a discretion not to cancel.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Court of Appeal and the District Court, and remitted the matter to the District Court for a rehearing according to law. The second respondent was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings at all levels.