By Thomas Hurley -
Key decisions
- Kong v Minister for Health [2014] FCAFC 149
- Quinntano v Minister for Finance and Deregulation [2014] FCAFC 159
- National Archives of Australia v Fernandes [2014] FCAFC 158
- Lee v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] FCAFC 174
- Clement v Comcare [2014] FCAFC 164
- United Firefighters’ Union of Australia v Country Fire Authority [2015] FCAFC 1
- Albrecht v Commissioner of Taxation [2014] FCAFC 176
- Renshaw v Queensland Mining Corporation Limited [2014] FCAFC 172
- Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 177
- Snedden v Minster for Justice for the Commonwealth of Australia [2014] FCAFC 156
- Commissioner of Taxation v Qantas Airways Limited [2014] FCAFC 156
- Montero v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 170
- Minister for Immigation and Border Protection v Dhillon [2014] FCAFC 157
- Sapkota v Minister for Immigation and Border Protection [2014] FCAFC 160
- Regency Media Pty Ltd v MPEG LA, LLC [2014] FCAFC 183
- Samson Maritime Pty Ltd v Aucote [2014] FCAFC 182
- Commissioner of Taxation v Macoun [2014] FCAFC 162
- Obeid v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2014] FCAFC 155
Administrative law
Standing – person aggrieved – neighbouring shops to one seeking approval to issue pharmaceuticals – ‘community without access to pharmaceutical benefits’ – ‘public interest’
In Kong v Minister for Health [2014] FCAFC 149 (20 November 2014) all members of a Full Court concluded neighbouring shopkeepers with the right to dispense pharmaceutical benefits did not hold a ‘pole position’ with a right to be heard before the Minister made a decision under s 90A(2) of the National Health Act 1953 (Cth) to approve a neighbouring shop as one that could also dispense pharmaceutical benefits. The court also concluded the primary judge did not err in the meaning given to the phrases ‘a community being left without reasonable access to pharmaceutical benefits’ and ‘public interest’ in s 90A(2) of the Act.