Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tisdall v Health Insurance Commission (No 2) [2002] FCA 149 PETER THOMAS TISDALL v HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION AND ORS V 849 OF 2000 TAMBERLIN J MELBOURNE 15 FEBRUARY 2002
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 849 OF 2000
BETWEEN: DR PETER THOMAS TISDALL
APPLICANT
AND: HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION
FIRST RESPONDENT
DR ALAN JOHN HOLMES (as the Director of Professional Services Review)
SECOND RESPONDENT
DR KENNETH NEVILLE (as Chairperson of Professional Services Review Committee No 106)
THIRD RESPONDENT
DR DAVID ROSENTHAL (as a Member of Professional Services Review Committee No 106)
FOURTH RESPONDENT
DR NICHOLAS DEMEDIUK (as a Member of Professional Services Review Committee No 106)
FIFTH RESPONDENT
DR LOUISE MORAUTA (as the Determining Officer)
SIXTH RESPONDENT
JUDGE: TAMBERLIN J
DATE OF ORDER: 15 FEBRUARY 2002
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondents' costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY V 849 OF 2000
BETWEEN: DR PETER THOMAS TISDALL
APPLICANT
AND: HEALTH INSURANCE COMMISSION
FIRST RESPONDENT
DR ALAN JOHN HOLMES (as the Director of Professional Services Review)
SECOND RESPONDENT
DR KENNETH NEVILLE (as Chairperson of Professional Services Review Committee No 106)
THIRD RESPONDENT
DR DAVID ROSENTHAL (as a Member of Professional Services Review Committee No 106)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate