Strathclyde Pharmaceuticals Ltd and Another v Argyll and Clyde Health Board and Another
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 07 December 1995 |
| Date | 07 December 1995 |
| Court | Court of Session (Outer House) |
Outer House of the Court of Session
Before Lord Coulsfield
Scots law - National Health Service - provision of pharmaceutical services- minor relocation
Where a pharmacist sought permission to relocate his premises, and the health board was obliged to consider representations from other interested pharmacists before granting the application, unless the relocation was a minor relocation within a single neighbourhood, a board's general pharmaceutical committee was entitled to conclude that the proposed relocation was minor without having regard to representation from local pharmacists which had been made to the committee.
Lord Coulsfield, sitting in the Outer House of the Court of Session, so held, dismissing a petition brought by Strathclyde Pharmaceuticals Ltd and another seeking judicial review of a decision of the general pharmaceutical committee of the Argyll and Clyde Health Board to grant an application by the firm of Birnie Pharmacy, to move from 92 Cross Arthurlie Street to 176 Main Street, Barrhead, Renfrewshire.
Mr Jonathon Brodie for the petitioners; Miss Gail Joughin for the board; Mr Sigidur Bennett for Birnie Pharmacy.
LORD COULSFIELD said that regulation 28(4) of the National Health Service (General, Medical and Pharmaceutical Services) (Scotland) Regulations (SI 1974 No 506) as amended by the National Health Service (General, Medical and Pharmaceutical Services)(Scotland)(Amendment) Regulations (SI 1987 No 385) and the National Health Service (General, Medical and Pharmaceutical Services)(Scotland)(Amendment) (No 2) Regulations (SI 1990 No 2509) required that an application to relocate a pharmacy was only to be granted if the board had first given written notice of the application to, inter alia, any person whose name was on the pharmaceutical list and whose interest might be affected if the application was granted.
However, regulation 28(4) did not apply to applications under regulation 28(3A), which provided that where an applicant intended to relocate a new premises within the neighbourhood in which he provided pharmaceutical services, and to provide from those new premises the same services which he was listed as providing from his existing premises and "the board is satisfied that the relocation was a minor relocation … the board shall grant the application."
Regulation 28(3C) defined a minor relocation as one "where...
To continue reading
Request your trial