Petition of Abbey Chemists LTD for Judicial Review (Court of Session)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Petitioner sought judicial review of a decision by the National Appeal Panel ("NAP") dated 10 September 2024, which refused the Petitioner's appeal against a decision of the Pharmacy Practices Committee ("PPC") of Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board. The PPC had granted an application by Company B to be included on the Health Board's Pharmaceutical List for premises at a specified location. The initial application by Company B was made on 8 January 2023, granted by the PPC on 11 September 2023, and appealed by the Petitioner. The NAP upheld the Petitioner's first appeal on 12 June 2024, remitting the matter back to the PPC. Upon reconsideration, the PPC again granted the application on 20 June 2024. The Petitioner appealed this second decision to the NAP, which refused the appeal, prompting the current judicial review.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the PPC properly reconsidered the application anew as required by the NAP's remittal, or merely refreshed its original decision, constituting a procedural defect.
2. Whether the PPC and NAP erred in their assessment of the adequacy of pharmaceutical service provision in the relevant neighbourhood.
3. Whether the NAP failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision refusing the Petitioner's appeal.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

• The PPC failed to reconsider the application anew upon remittal and merely refreshed its original decision with additional reasons, which was a procedural defect.
• The NAP erred in law or acted unreasonably by refusing the appeal despite this procedural defect.
• The PPC's assessment of adequacy was flawed, including an incorrect assertion that the Petitioner provided the "bulk" of services, conflation of customer satisfaction with adequacy, and improper reliance on an outdated Consultation Assessment Report ("CAR").
• The NAP failed to provide adequate reasons for its decision, leaving the Petitioner in substantial doubt as to the basis of the decision.
• The PPC should have considered the merits of the particular premises beyond the necessity or desirability test.

Respondent's Arguments

• The Petitioner's interpretation of "reconsideration" is unreasonably semantic; terms like "refreshed," "revisited," and "reconsidered" were treated equivalently by the PPC.
• The PPC carried out the required reconsideration and made a fresh decision on the merits.
• The NAP's refusal to allow the appeal was appropriate, and the reasons provided were sufficient.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first examined whether the PPC had properly reconsidered the application after the NAP's remittal. Despite the Petitioner's contention that the PPC merely refreshed its original decision, the court found the PPC had gone beyond mere repetition. The PPC revisited evidence, considered an extended definition of the neighbourhood, assessed the validity of the Consultation Assessment Report in light of changes, evaluated additional evidence including service provision by other pharmacies, and ultimately made a fresh decision on adequacy. The court emphasized the expert status of the PPC and the appropriateness of its detailed reasoning and conclusions.

Regarding the Petitioner's challenge to the adequacy of the PPC's factual findings, including the claim that the Petitioner supplied less than the "bulk" of services, the court found no basis to conclude the PPC's decision was irrational. The court reiterated the high threshold for judicial interference in decisions of specialist tribunals, noting that disagreements with factual conclusions do not constitute valid grounds for appeal or judicial review.

The court also addressed the Petitioner's argument that customer satisfaction was conflated with adequacy of provision. It found that patient satisfaction, as reflected in the CAR, was a legitimate factor for the PPC's consideration and that the NAP correctly upheld the PPC's approach.

The court rejected the Petitioner's assertion that the PPC erred by limiting the weight of evidence regarding other pharmacies due to their absence at the oral hearing. The court interpreted the PPC's reasoning as appropriately assigning weight to represented parties and noted the absence of evidence supporting claims that other pharmacies could increase provision.

On the statutory test, the court referred to the authoritative interpretation that the PPC need only assess whether the application was necessary or desirable to secure adequate provision in the neighbourhood, not the relative merits of the premises beyond this test. The court found no error in the NAP's refusal to allow an appeal on this basis.

Finally, the court considered the adequacy of the NAP's reasons and found them sufficient, referencing established case law on the standards for administrative reasoning. The court concluded that an informed reader would understand the basis of the NAP's decision.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED THE PETITION, dismissing the Petitioner's judicial review challenge to the NAP's decision.

The decision confirms the standard that a specialist tribunal's reconsideration after remittal may include reaffirmation of prior reasoning if supplemented by fresh consideration and adequate explanation. It underscores the high threshold for judicial interference in expert tribunal decisions on factual matters and the sufficiency of reasons required in administrative decisions. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling upheld existing principles on procedural fairness, adequacy of reasons, and the scope of judicial review in the context of pharmaceutical list admissions.