Assura Pharmacy Ltd, R (on the application of) v E Moss Ltd (t/a Alliance Pharmacy)

Assura Pharmacy Ltd, R (on the application of) v E Moss Ltd (t/a Alliance Pharmacy)

The PAC's decisions in both cases were legally tenable, having properly considered adequacy and choice as required by Regulation 12 of the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2005. The statutory test does not require separate providers for reasonable choice, and the PAC was entitled to weigh all relevant factors. The absence of explicit reference to choice in the decision letter did not invalidate the decision. There was no radical departure from guidance requiring explanation.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Assura Pharmacy Limited; Respondent/defendant/cross Appellant: National Health Service Litigation Authority (Family Health Services Appeal Unit); Interested Party: E Moss Limited (trading as Alliance Pharmacy)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Assura's appeal dismissed; NHSLA's appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Pharmaceutical Services Regulation, Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation, Competition and Choice in NHS Pharmacy Provision
Administrative Law Health Law Regulatory Law Pharmaceutical Services Regulation Judicial Review Statutory Interpretation Competition and Choice in NHS Pharmacy Provision

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Assura Pharmacy Limited

Appellant/claimant

National Health Service Litigation Authority (Family Health Services Appeal Unit)

Respondent/defendant/cross Appellant

E Moss Limited (trading as Alliance Pharmacy)

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper interpretation of 'necessary or desirable' test for entry to NHS pharmaceutical list
  2. 2 Adequacy and choice of pharmaceutical services under Regulation 12 of the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2005
  3. 3 Obligation to follow and provide reasons for departure from Department of Health guidance

Ratio Decidendi

The PAC's decisions in both cases were legally tenable, having properly considered adequacy and choice as required by Regulation 12 of the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2005. The statutory test does not require separate providers for reasonable choice, and the PAC was entitled to weigh all relevant factors. The absence of explicit reference to choice in the decision letter did not invalidate the decision. There was no radical departure from guidance requiring explanation.

Court Disposition

Assura's appeal dismissed; NHSLA's appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Todmorden: PAC decision upheld, Assura's application refused.
  • Freckleton: PAC decision reinstated, Assura's application refused.