PETITON OF BURNS PHARMACY LTD FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW [2023] ScotCS CSOH_60 (13 September 2023)

PETITON OF BURNS PHARMACY LTD FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW [2023] ScotCS CSOH_60 (13 September 2023)

The National Appeal Panel did not err in law or act unreasonably in upholding the PPC's decision; the PPC provided sufficiently clear reasons for its finding of inadequacy of existing services, particularly regarding parking and accessibility, and properly considered viability based on imminent population growth.

Citation
[2023] ScotCS CSOH_60
Parties
Petitioner: Burns Pharmacy Limited; First Respondent: National Appeal Panel; Second Respondent: Ayrshire and Arran Health Board; Third Respondent: Mr Sean Manson
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
13 September 2023
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
petition refused
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Pharmaceutical Services, Adequacy of Services, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Health Law Judicial Review Pharmaceutical Services Adequacy of Services Statutory Interpretation

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Burns Pharmacy Limited

Petitioner

National Appeal Panel

First Respondent

Ayrshire and Arran Health Board

Second Respondent

Mr Sean Manson

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the National Appeal Panel err in law or act unreasonably in upholding the PPC's decision to grant Mr Manson's application for inclusion on the pharmaceutical list?
  2. 2 Did the PPC provide adequate reasons for its finding of inadequacy of existing pharmaceutical services, particularly regarding parking and accessibility?
  3. 3 Did the PPC properly consider the viability of the proposed pharmacy, including population growth and housing developments?

Ratio Decidendi

The National Appeal Panel did not err in law or act unreasonably in upholding the PPC's decision; the PPC provided sufficiently clear reasons for its finding of inadequacy of existing services, particularly regarding parking and accessibility, and properly considered viability based on imminent population growth.

Court Disposition

petition refused

Orders

  • Second and third pleas-in-law for the board sustained
  • Petitioner's second plea-in-law repelled