Reclaiming Motion Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd v The National Appeal Panel & Anor [2010] ScotCS CSIH_55 (25 June 2010)

Reclaiming Motion Lloyds Pharmacy Ltd v The National Appeal Panel & Anor [2010] ScotCS CSIH_55 (25 June 2010)

The Panel erred by failing to consider the changed circumstances in the neighbourhood, specifically the relocation of GP practices to the new health centre, when assessing adequacy of pharmaceutical provision. The Lord Ordinary correctly applied the two-stage test required by regulation 5(10) and binding precedent.

Citation
[2010] ScotCS CSIH_55
Parties
Petitioner: Lloyds Pharmacy Limited; First Respondent and Reclaimer: The National Appeal Panel; First Interested Party: Boots the Chemist Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor
Outcome
Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor affirmed.
Legal Topics
Pharmaceutical Services, Adequacy of Provision, Statutory Interpretation, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Health Law Pharmaceutical Services Adequacy of Provision Statutory Interpretation Judicial Review

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyds Pharmacy Limited

Petitioner

The National Appeal Panel

First Respondent and Reclaimer

Boots the Chemist Limited

First Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Reclaiming Motion Against Lord Ordinary's Interlocutor

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Panel erred in assessing adequacy of pharmaceutical provision by failing to consider changed circumstances in the neighbourhood
  2. 2 Proper construction and application of regulation 5(10) of the 1995 regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The Panel erred by failing to consider the changed circumstances in the neighbourhood, specifically the relocation of GP practices to the new health centre, when assessing adequacy of pharmaceutical provision. The Lord Ordinary correctly applied the two-stage test required by regulation 5(10) and binding precedent.

Court Disposition

Reclaiming motion refused; Lord Ordinary's interlocutor affirmed.

Orders

  • Petition for judicial review succeeds; Panel's decision reduced and appeal remitted to differently constituted panel.