ZAA Ventures Pty Ltd as Trustee for ZAA Investment Trust v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority

ZAA Ventures Pty Ltd as Trustee for ZAA Investment Trust brought an application for judicial review against the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority (ACPA) regarding the ACPA's decision to recommend that ZAA's application for approval to supply pharmaceutical benefits not be approved. The decision was based on the ACPA's interpretation of the term "supermarket" under the National Health (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority Rules) Determination 2018 (Cth). ZAA argued that the ACPA's construction of the definition of "supermarket" led to an error in forming a subjective jurisdictional fact, which in turn led to the incorrect recommendation.

The legal issues before the court were whether the ACPA had erred in its interpretation of the term "supermarket" and whether this error led to an unjustifiable decision. ZAA contended that the ACPA's interpretation that a supermarket must be selling goods at all relevant times was incorrect and that the term should be interpreted to mean that a supermarket must have opened and be selling its range of products. The ACPA argued that its interpretation was correct and that ZAA's interpretation would create difficulties for both the ACPA and applicants in determining how the rules apply to them.

The court found that the ACPA had indeed erred in its interpretation of the term "supermarket." The court held that the definition of "supermarket" should be interpreted to mean that a supermarket must have opened and be selling its range of products, rather than requiring that it be selling goods at all relevant times. The court also held that this error led to an unjustifiable decision, as the ACPA had not considered all relevant evidence and submissions before making its decision. The court quashed the ACPA's decision and remitted ZAA's application to the ACPA for reconsideration according to law.

The final orders of the court were that the decision of the ACPA recommending that ZAA's application not be approved be quashed and a writ of certiorari be issued quashing the decision; that ZAA's application be remitted to the ACPA to consider the application and make a recommendation according to law and a writ of mandamus be issued compelling the ACPA to do so; and that the ACPA pay ZAA's costs of and incidental to the application.