Calvary weighs appeal after hospital takeover upheld

Calvary Public Hospital is weighing its options to appeal a legal finding that the Barr government’s hostile takeover of its north Canberra site was within the law.

Calvary Public Hospital is weighing its options to appeal a legal finding that the Barr government’s hostile takeover of its north Canberra site was within the law, after the ACT Supreme Court revealed why it dismissed the Catholic health providers’ arguments.

Lawyers representing Calvary will scour the detailed legal judgment outlining the reasons the court’s full bench rejected its argument. Calvary’s argument was the acquisition was invalid because it did not fulfil just terms.

The decision clears the way for the ACT Labor government to take control of the site from July 3, unless Calvary opts to lodge an appeal.

The acquisition has been ­criticised by religious leaders, who say it sets a dangerous precedent that governments can ­legally acquire faith-based institutions.

The hospital came under fire earlier this year from an ACT parliamentary committee for its reluctance to offer abortions.

In the judgment published on Friday, Chief Justice Lucy McCallum, Justice David Mossop and Justice Belinda Baker found that Calvary’s submissions did not “demonstrate that the act as a whole is invalid”.

“None of the grounds put forward by Calvary demonstrated either that the Act as a whole or any of its provisions were laws which, by reason of … the Self-Government Act, the Legislative Assembly had no power to make,” the judgment said.

“It was therefore unnecessary to consider the question of severance pursuant to s120 of the Legislation Act.”

Calvary argued the acquisition was invalid because it had not been appropriately compensated for the business of the hospital, but the court found reference to “business” is not useful.

“To the extent to which the acquisition of the assets of the ‘business’ removes an income-earning potential going beyond the value of the assets then the loss of that income-earning potential must be compensated for under the requirement to provide just terms,” the judgment said.

“Attempting to characterise the acquisition of the ‘business’ as being an acquisition of property additional to the property expressly acquired by the provisions of the Act does not, in this case, alter the content of the requirement for just terms or affect the validity of the act.”

The judgment also found “there is no doubt that a payment of money may be an appropriate form of compensation for such obligations” when it came to any inconvenience or other loss suffered by Calvary.

When the decision was handed down, Calvary’s barrister David Williams indicated in court that the health provider intended to appeal the ­decision, adding that “the consideration of the appeal right is difficult without the reasons”.

The takeover will be probed by a Senate ­committee after Senator Matt Canavan tried to introduce legislation to amend powers of the ACT ­government.