Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hope v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2017] FCA 669 File number(s): TAD 53 of 2016
Judge(s): KERR J
Date of judgment: 23 June 2017
Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – objection to new pharmacy – approval of new pharmacy location – interpretation of rules for pharmacy approval – false and misleading information provided by applicant to the Australian Community Pharmacy Authority – 'fraud' in Australian public law – fraud on the Authority – jurisdiction of Authority constructively unexercised – Authority's recommendation vitiated – application remitted
Legislation: Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) National Health Act 1953 (Cth) National Health (Australian Community Pharmacy Authority Rules) Determination 2011
Cases cited: Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission [1992] HCA 10; (1992) 175 CLR 564 Craig v South Australia [1995] HCA 58; (1995) 184 CLR 163 Hope v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2016] FCA 1597 Kastrinakis v Australian Community Pharmacy Authority [2013] FCA 995 Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasely [1956] 1QB 702 R v Fulham, Hammersmith and Kensington Rent Tribunal; Ex parte Gormly [1951] 2 All ER 1030 SZFDE v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] HCA 35; (2007) 232 CLR 189 Walkerden v Wodonga Pharmacy Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 273; (2015) 230 FCR 243 Yu v Minister for Health [2013] FCA 261; (2013) 216 FCR 168 Yu v Minister for Health (No 2) [2013] FCA 367
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