Tankey v Adams

The case of Tankey v Adams involves a dispute regarding the interpretation and application of s 87(1) of a statutory Act. Dr Tankey, a practitioner, appealed against a decision that questioned the validity of a referral made concerning his conduct. The referral in question was to be assessed against the criteria outlined in s 87(1)(a) and s 87(1)(b)(i), (ii), or (iii). The central issue for the court was whether the referral met the specific criteria required by the statute, particularly in terms of specifying the class of services or persons.

The court had to determine if Dr Tankey’s referral, which broadly covered all services rendered during a specified period, complied with the statutory requirement to specify either a "specified class" of services or services provided to a "specified class" of persons. The referral did not narrowly define the services or the class of persons, instead, it covered all services and all patients during the referral period. The court noted that the referral was too general to meet the statutory requirements and found that it did not fall under any of the specified categories in s 87(1)(b). Additionally, the court considered whether the referral met the criterion of services provided within a specified location, but found that even if this were the case, it would not meet the statutory requirements.

In reaching its conclusion, the court relied on the ordinary meaning of the term "specify" as stated in the Macquarie Dictionary, which entails mentioning or naming specifically or definitely, and stating in detail. The referral was deemed too broad and non-specific to meet the statutory requirements. The court also referenced Artinian v Commonwealth (1996) 43 ALD 235, where Hill J had previously commented on the need for a referral to specify services or persons in accordance with the statutory provisions.

ORDERS:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.