Wong v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority

The case of Wong v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority involves a challenge by Mr. Wong to the decision of the Authority to recommend the approval of Mr. Pearson's application for approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits at particular premises. Mr. Wong argues that the Authority failed to accord procedural fairness and took into account irrelevant considerations in making its recommendation. The Authority, in turn, contends that it acted lawfully and that Mr. Wong is not entitled to procedural fairness.

The legal issues that the court had to decide in this case were whether Mr. Wong, whose economic interest would be affected by the Authority's recommendation, was entitled to procedural fairness, whether the Authority failed to take into account a relevant consideration, and whether the Authority's decision was unreasonable. The court held that Mr. Wong was not entitled to procedural fairness because the statutory scheme did not require it. Furthermore, the court found that the Authority had not failed to take into account a relevant consideration because there was no requirement in the statute or the Pharmacy Rules that the Authority was bound to have regard to whether persons located to the east of the Forrest Highway would be deterred by the highway from utilizing the services in the Mandurah CBD in determining the population of the catchment area. The court also held that the Authority's decision was not unreasonable.

The court's reasoning was that the statutory scheme did not require procedural fairness, and the matters to which the Authority was bound to have regard were set out in rule 107 of the Pharmacy Rules. The court found that the Authority had taken into account the relevant considerations and that the decision was not unreasonable. The court also held that even if the Authority was bound to take into account the question of whether the Forrest Highway would deter persons to the east of the highway, in determining the population in the catchment area, the Authority did have regard to this consideration.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant's application was dismissed, and the applicant was to pay the respondents' costs. The third respondent had liberty to apply in respect of costs.