Terry White Chemists Australia Fair v Secretary to the Department of Health and Ageing

In the case of Terry White Chemists Australia Fair v Secretary to the Department of Health and Ageing, the appellant, a pharmacy located at Australia Fair Shopping Centre in Southport, Queensland, sought judicial review of a decision made by the Secretary to the Department of Health and Ageing. The Secretary had granted approval to a second respondent, Chemist Warehouse, to supply pharmaceutical benefits from their premises, which were located less than 500 meters from the appellant's premises. The appellant argued that the second respondent's operation of a pharmacy without the necessary development permit was unlawful and that the Secretary’s approval was therefore invalid. The appellant had previously obtained a declaration from the Queensland Planning and Environment Court affirming that the second respondent's premises could not lawfully be used as a pharmacy without a development permit.

The court was required to determine whether the Secretary's decision to grant approval to the second respondent to supply pharmaceutical benefits was lawful, considering the zoning and planning requirements stipulated under the Integrated Planning Act 1997 (Qld). The primary legal issue revolved around whether the Secretary could lawfully grant approval to the second respondent to operate a pharmacy without a development permit, given that the premises did not comply with the minimum car parking space requirements and had not been approved for use as a shop. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the Secretary's decision fell within the scope of review under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth).

The court found that the Secretary's decision to grant approval to the second respondent was lawful. The court reasoned that the approval process under the National Health Act was separate from the planning approval process under the Integrated Planning Act. The court held that the Secretary had the authority to grant approval for the supply of pharmaceutical benefits, irrespective of whether the premises complied with local planning regulations. Furthermore, the court determined that the appellant did not have standing to challenge the Secretary’s decision as it pertained to the second respondent’s compliance with planning laws. The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal.