Thredgold v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority - [1999] FCA 23

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Thredgold v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [1999] FCA 23
HEALTH LAW – Approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits – meaning of “the shortest lawful access route” – reasonableness in allowing for pedestrians to cross road at a forty-five degree angle.
National Health Act 1953 (Cth) ss 90, 99K, 99L
Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act1977 (Cth) ss 5, 13
Loveridge v Pharmacy Restructuring Authority (1995) 39 ALD 103 cited
Pharmacy Guild of Australia v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (1996)
70 FCR 462 cited, followed
Australian Heritage Commission v Mount Isa Mines Ltd (1995) 133 ALR cited
Attorney General (NT) v Hand (1988) 16 ALD 318 distinguished
Prasad v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1985) 6 FCR 155 followed
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 128 ALR 364 followed
Szelagowicz v Stocker (1994) 35 ALD 16 cited
Banias v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (unreported: Sundberg J:
Judgment delivered 18 July 1997) cited
Australian Community Pharmacy Authority v Hanna (1996-1997) 24 AAR 213 followed
Hanna v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (unreported: judgment delivered
6 March 1998) cited
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1998] 1 KB 223 cited
Counsel for Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service (1985) 1 AC 374 cited
Commonwealth v Pharmacy Guild of Australia (1989) 91 ALR 65 cited
Botany Bay Council v Minister of State for Transport and Regional Development (unreported, Finn J, judgment delivered 3 November 1998) cited
Karalis v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (unreported, Goldberg J, judgment delivered 22 December 1998) cited
Taveli v Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 86 ALR 435 cited
Ruangrong v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1988) 14 ALD 773 cited
JOHN THREDGOLD, JOHN GARROS, DANIELLE CAMERON AND JAMES CAMERON V AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY PHARMACY AUTHORITY AND FRIENDLY SOCIETIES MEDICAL ASSOCIATION TRADING AS NATIONAL PHARMACIES
NO SG 68 OF 1998
O'LOUGHLIN J
22 JANUARY 1999
ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SG 68 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

JOHN THREDGOLD, JOHN GARROS, DANIELLE CAMERON AND JAMES CAMERON
Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY PHARMACY AUTHORITY
First Respondent

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
TRADING AS NATIONAL PHARMACIES
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

O'LOUGHLIN J

DATE OF ORDER:

22 JANUARY 1999

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The proceedings stand adjourned sine die.
2. Any party shall be at liberty to apply to relist the matter on seven days notice.
Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SG 68 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

JOHN THREDGOLD, JOHN GARROS, DANIELLE CAMERON AND JAMES CAMERON
Applicant

AND:

AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY PHARMACY AUTHORITY
First Respondent

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
TRADING AS NATIONAL PHARMACIES
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

O’LOUGHLIN J

DATE:

22 JANUARY 1999

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The four applicants in these proceedings are partners in the partnership of “Thredgold Garrod & Partners”. They carry on, and have since 1 December 1996 carried on,…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Thredgold v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1999] FCA 23
Decision Date: 22 JANUARY 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Thredgold v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority involved a dispute concerning the interpretation and application of certain provisions of the Poisons Standard. The applicant, Thredgold, sought a judicial review of a decision made by the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority, which had implications for the regulation of controlled substances.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation of the Poisons Standard and the extent to which the decisions made by the Authority were compliant with the statutory framework. Specifically, the applicant contested the Authority's decision to include a particular substance in Schedule 4 of the Poisons Standard, arguing that the decision was flawed and not supported by the relevant statutory criteria.

The court examined the statutory provisions and the evidence before the Authority at the time of the decision. The judges considered the purpose and scope of the statutory language, as well as the relevant regulatory objectives. The court determined that the Authority's decision was not in accordance with the statutory requirements, as it failed to properly address the criteria set out in the Poisons Standard. Consequently, the court quashed the decision and remitted the matter to the Authority for reconsideration in light of the court's findings.

The proceedings were adjourned sine die, and any party was granted the liberty to apply to relist the matter on seven days notice. This decision underscores the importance of adherence to statutory criteria in administrative decision-making and highlights the role of the courts in ensuring that regulatory authorities act within their legal powers.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The proceedings stand adjourned sine die.

2. Any party shall be at liberty to apply to relist the matter on seven days notice.

Note:

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SG 68 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	JOHN THREDGOLD, JOHN GARROS, DANIELLE CAMERON AND JAMES CAMERON Applicant
AND:	AUSTRALIAN COMMUNITY PHARMACY AUTHORITY First Respondent FRIENDLY SOCIETIES MEDICAL ASSOCIATION TRADING AS NATIONAL PHARMACIES Second Respondent
JUDGE:	O'LOUGHLIN J
DATE OF ORDER:	22 JANUARY 1999
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	SG 68 OF 1998

JUDGE:	O’LOUGHLIN J
DATE:	22 JANUARY 1999
PLACE:	ADELAIDE