Pharmacy Care Systems Limited v The Attorney-General

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND
SC CIV 12/2004
BETWEENPHARMACY CARE SYSTEMS LIMITED

Applicant

ANDTHE ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Respondent

Coram:Gault J
Tipping J
Counsel:B O'Callahan for Applicant

G A D Neil for Respondent

Judgment:9 November 2004

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

[1]   The principal focus of this application for leave to appeal concerns whether the Court of Appeal applied the correct test as to duress. We do not require an oral hearing to determine the application.
[2]   The law of New Zealand on the subject of duress is sufficiently clear and settled. We refer in particular to the decision of the Privy Council in Attorney‑General for England and Wales v R [2004] 2 NZLR 577. It is not necessary in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to examine the matter in this case.
[3]   No issue of general or public importance or of general commercial significance therefore arises. Furthermore, we consider that whatever may be the relevant nuances of the law of duress, the applicant’s case would fail on the facts concurrently found by the Courts below. The other issues cannot in these circumstances justify leave being granted.
[4]   For these reasons the applicant has not established the necessary grounds for an appeal to this Court. This application is accordingly refused with costs to the respondent of $1,000.00 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar.
Solicitors:
Carter & Partners, Auckland for Applicant
Crown Solicitor, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pharmacy Care Systems Limited applied for leave to appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal, which had rejected their argument that they were entitled to a refund of a penalty they had paid under the Medicines Act 1981. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the legal test for duress in its decision. The Supreme Court found that the law on duress was sufficiently settled, particularly in light of the Privy Council's decision in Attorney-General for England and Wales v R, and that it was not necessary in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to examine the matter in this case.

The legal issue at the heart of the case was the appropriate test for duress, which was whether the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the law. The Supreme Court determined that the law was sufficiently clear, and it was not necessary for the Supreme Court to delve further into the matter. Furthermore, the Court found that even if the law of duress had been applied correctly, the applicant's case would have failed on the facts as found by the Courts below. The Supreme Court also noted that no issue of general or public importance or of general commercial significance arose from the case.

In light of these findings, the Supreme Court refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal. The Court concluded that the applicant had not established the necessary grounds for an appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ordered that the applicant pay costs to the respondent in the amount of $1,000.00 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The parties were represented by Carter & Partners for the applicant and the Crown Solicitor for the respondent.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established