Hatfield, S.B. v. Health Insurance Commission [1987] FCA 462

SUDGNIET No AG. Zeman

CATCHWORDS

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - reasons for decision under s.13, Judicial Review Act - whether sufficient statement of reasons - whether operation of s.13 excluded by provisions of s.13(11) and

Sch. 2(e) - whether decision is a decision "relating to the administration of criminal justice" or "in connection with the

investigation ... of persons for any offences against a law of the Commonwealth"

WORDS AND PHRASES - "in relation to"

- "in connection with"

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) SS.5,6, 13(1),(1l1), 13A, Sch. 2(e),(£)

Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth) s.28 Director of Public Prosecutions Act 1983 (Cth) s.6

Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth) s.16A, item 793 in Sch.l.

SAMUEL BOLAN HATFIELD v. HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION NO. G563 of 1986

Davies J. 27 August 1987 Sydney

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA )

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G563 of 1986

GENERAL DIVISION )

BETWEEN: SAMUEL BOLAN HATFIELD

Applicant

AND: HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION

Respondent

CORAM: Davies J. DATE: 27 August 1987 PLACE: Sydney

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

The applicant was entitled to request the respondent to furnish a statement in writing in accordance with the provisions of s.13(1) of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) in respect of the decision, communicated by letter dated 28 April 1986, that no further item 793 benefits would be paid to the applicant for services performed on referral from practitioners within the Edelsten Group until the respondent was satisfied that

the pre-requisites of item 793 claims were being met.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The applicant's costs of the application be paid by the respondent.

Notes: Settlement and entry of orders 1s dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY ) No. G563 of 1986