Raiz v PSR (No 2) [2023] FCA 1293
Dr Raiz challenged referral of a complaint to a committee. He said a prior ‘inclination to refer’ was itself a ‘decision’ which was flawed because his submissions had not been taken into account11. The issue was what is meant by ‘make a referral’12.
The judge held no ‘decision’ was made until the instrument of referral was given. Within complex provisions, the judge stressed the impact of purpose in requiring a non-grammatical outcome13. This was also supported by the meaning of ‘decision’ more generally14. Only the formal instrument involved a ‘decision’. This was when the ‘temporal guillotine’15 fell and the Raiz submissions had to be considered.
This principle is from Episode 102 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
11 This would have legally undermined the entire referral process.
12 s 89C(2) of the Health Insurance Act 1973 (Cth).
13 Certain Lloyd’s [2012] HCA 56 [25], cf Carr v Carr [2022] NSWSC 166 [82].
14 Semunigus [2000] FCA 240 [19, 20], cf Amir [2021] FCA 745 [51].
15 Amir [2022] FCAFC 44 [66] quoted.