Wong and Australian Community Pharmacy Authority

This matter concerned an application by Mr Shui Su Wong for approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits at particular premises. The Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (ACPA) had recommended that Mr Wong's application not be approved. Mr Wong sought a review of this recommendation before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The AAT considered evidence and submissions from Mr Wong, the ACPA, and an "Other Party" who was also involved in the proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the requirement under Item 132, 2(a) of the Pharmacy Rules, stipulating the practice of at least four full-time equivalent prescribing medical practitioners, had been satisfied. The Tribunal noted that if this requirement was not met, Mr Wong's application would fail, and it would not be necessary to consider the secondary requirement relating to the gross leasable area of any supermarkets under Item 132, 2(b). A preliminary issue also arose regarding the admissibility of additional evidence provided by Mr Wong that had not been before the ACPA during its initial decision-making process.

The Tribunal addressed the preliminary issue by allowing Mr Wong to present additional evidence, subject to the Other Party having the opportunity to test it and respond. The Tribunal reasoned that this approach would ensure procedural fairness and allow for a comprehensive review. Crucially, the Tribunal found that the evidence presented did not satisfy the requirement of having at least four full-time equivalent prescribing medical practitioners practising in the relevant area. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that Mr Wong's application failed on this ground.

As the Tribunal determined that the primary requirement under Item 132, 2(a) was not met, it did not proceed to consider the issue of the gross leasable area of supermarkets. The Tribunal affirmed the ACPA's recommendation of 22 January 2016 that Mr Wong's application be not approved.