Riverside Nursing Care v Honourable Bronwyn †MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about the Riverside Nursing Care v Honourable Bronwyn. Answer: Introduction: The case is belong to Riverside Nursing Care v Honourable Bronwyn Bishop [2000] FCA 1147 (16 August 2000) and based on the Aged Care Act 1977 and Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977. Both the Acts are prevailed in the provinces of Victoria, Australia. It has been observed that the Nursing care authority made a review appeal against the decision of the Secretary that has been passed on 5 March 2000. In this case, the learned Judges have observed an important code of Administrative law. They have nurtured the scope and application of natural justice. The grounds and rules regarding the review against the order of the Secretary have also been pointed out. Significance: The case is significant, as through this case, it has become easy to understand the application of the judicial review and its role in the natural justice. Various sections of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 have been included in this case and the Nursing authority has made the review appeal under section 5 of the Act[1]. The important notification made by the court on section 5 is that if a person made an application under this section for review, the operation of the alleged order will not affected or it does not restrict the implementation of the decision until the court has ordered anything. It has been stated that the review will be accepted only if the claimant can prove that the decision will cause irreparable damage to the party. In this process, the court has taken the case of Annetts v McCann [1990] HCA 57 as a reference. Contribution: The contribution of this decision on theAdministrative Law has created a great impact. Through this case, it was cleared that the judicial review made against the decision of any statutory authority does not affect its operation[2]. It is the claimant, who has to establish that the rights, interest and the legitimate expectation of him will be affected by this decision. The inner meaning of section 67 of the Act has also been cleared in this process. It has been stated under the section that the principle of Audi Alterem Partem can be excluded if the secretary deem fit that the action of the party can injure the health and safety issue of care recipients[3]. It has also been pointed out by the court that the common duty of any legislation is to act fairly and for the sake of justice. It does not matter whether it is belongs to any particular provinces or nationwide. The court held that section 65 of the Act allows the applicant an option to request the statutory authority (in this case the Secretary) to reconsider the decision and he should have to write a notice regarding the same within 90 days of such decision. However, the claimant has not made it in this case[4]. Aged Care Act: Section 85 of the Aged Care Act has been applied in this case and it has been held that the object of the Act is to provide fairness and justice in the lights of legislative intention. It has been observed by the court that the decision of the Secretary, not in any way will cause injustice to the Riverside Nursing Authority and therefore, the review appeal has been cancelled. References: Clark, Shannon J., Rhian M. Parker, and Rachel Davey. "Nurse practitioners in aged care: Documentary analysis of successful project proposals."Qualitative health research24.11 (2014): 1592-1602. Jordao, Eduardo Ferreira, and Susan Rose-Ackerman. "Judicial review of executive policymaking in advanced democracies: beyond rights review." (2014). Leyland, Peter, and Gordon Anthony.Textbook on administrative law. Oxford University Press, 2016. McMorrow, Stacey, Genevieve M. Kenney, and Dana Goin. "Determinants of receipt of recommended preventive services: implications for the Affordable Care Act."American journal of public health104.12 (2014): 2392-2399.