A High Court judge has upheld the Royal Pharmaceutical Society's rule that applicants for membership should have no more than three attempts at its registration examination.
The decision was made on July 26 by Mr Justice Holman in a judicial review sought by two applicants who had qualified as pharmacists overseas but had each failed the registration examination three times and been refused a final fourth attempt.
The first ground for the application was that the Pharmacy Act 1954 did not empower the Society to limit the number of attempts at the examination. The judge ruled that the Act did allow such a limit. It permitted Byelaws to prescribe periods of time in connection with registration examinations. There was no basis for limiting this to minimum periods of time, and the three-attempt limit prescribed a maximum, though flexible, period of time.
The second ground for the application was that the Byelaw-making power in the Society's Supplemental Charter did not permit the making of Byelaws concerning registration. The judge ruled that the Byelaw-making power was very wide, extending to Byelaws that "seem to the Council requisite for . . . the furtherance of the objects of the Society". The Council could tenably hold the view that the Byelaw was requisite for two Charter objects: "to advance chemistry and pharmacy" and "to maintain the honour and safeguard and promote the interests of the members in their exercise of the profession of pharmacy".
The final ground for the application was that the restriction, even if lawfully made under Statute or Charter, should be struck down as repugnant to the laws of the Realm, an unlawful restraint of trade or otherwise irrational or unreasonable. The judge concluded that, while the Byelaw operated to exclude the applicants' rights to pursue their chosen profession, it was justifiable and was intended to safeguard the public interest and the profession's reputation. The decision had been made by the Council only after a long process of consideration, it was not capricious and it reflected the approach taken by other bodies. There was a reasoned basis for its approach, and candidates were warned of the limits and offered advice.
The judge awarded the Society costs against the applicants. However, he noted with pleasure an assurance from the Society that it would give careful attention to the applicants' ability to pay before attempting to enforce the costs against them.