Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Pardo v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority [2013] FCA 91 Citation: Pardo v Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Authority [2013] FCA 91
Parties: DR NADIRA PARDO v AUSTRALIAN HEALTH PRACTITIONER REGULATION AUTHORITY (AHPRA) and PSYCHOLOGY BOARD OF AUSTRALIA
File number: TAD 61 of 2012
Judge: KERR J
Date of judgment: 1 February 2013
Catchwords: JURISDICTION – consideration of whether an application for review of decision made by the AHPRA and the Psychology Board of Australia is susceptible to review as an exercise of jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia – consideration of whether the application reflects a matter arising under a Commonwealth Act –registration of psychologists in Tasmania – recognition of international qualification – entitlement for registration – national registration scheme
Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s 31A Health Practitioner Regulation National Law Act 2009 (Qld) Health Practitioners Regulation National Law (Tasmania) Act 2010, s 4 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 39B Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth)
Cases cited: Broadbent v Medical Board of Queensland [2011] FCA 980 Carlton & United Breweries Limited v Castlemaine Tooheys Limited (1986) 161 CLR 543 National Auto Glass Supplies (Australia)Pty Ltd v Nielsen & Moller Autoglass (NSW) Pty Ltd (No 8) [2007] FCA 1625
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