Parry v Secretary, Department of Health [2023] HCA 9

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GAGELER J

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR PETER PARRY & ORS PLAINTIFFS

AND

SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DEFENDANT

Parry v Secretary, Department of Health

[2023] HCA 9

16 March 2023

S162/2022

ORDER

1. The matter be remitted to the Sydney Registry of the Federal Court of Australia.

2. The matter continue in the Federal Court of Australia as if the steps already taken in this Court, including the filing of the applications of Toni Reihana and William Anicha Bay for leave to intervene, were taken in the Federal Court of Australia.

3. The Registrar of this Court provide to the proper officer of the Federal Court of Australia copies of all documents filed in this Court.

4. The costs of the proceeding in this Court to date be costs in the Federal Court of Australia.

5. The costs in this Court, including the costs of this order, be according to the scale applicable to proceedings in this Court and thereafter according to the scale applicable in the Federal Court of Australia and in the discretion of that Court.

Notice: This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.

CATCHWORDS

Parry v Secretary, Department of Health

Practice – High Court – Remitter – Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), s 44 – Whether matter arising under Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth) should be remitted to Federal Court of Australia – Whether matter suitable to be heard in original jurisdiction of High Court of Australia – Where significant case management and fact finding required.

Words and phrases – "arising under", "case management", "constitutional writ", "fact finding", "jurisdiction", "matter", "remittal", "special interest", "standing", "subject-matter of the proceeding".

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss 39B, 44.

Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 (Cth), ss 22D, 25(3)(a), 30C(2).