The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 280 No 7491 p235
1 March 2008

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader

News summary

Costs awarded against Society in FTP case

Costs, estimated at £20,000, have been awarded against the Royal Pharmaceutical Society following unsuccessful disciplinary proceedings against two pharmacists. This is the first time the Disciplinary Committee has used new powers to award costs in fitness-to-practise proceedings.

The Society alleged that two brothers who jointly owned a community pharmacy with their third brother were guilty of misconduct because the third brother incorrectly endorsed a number of NHS prescriptions. The two brothers were not involved with the running of the pharmacy.

The Society was ordered to pay legal costs incurred by the brothers following a case management hearing in August 2007 at which the Society was asked what they were alleged to have done wrong. The Society said that it did not have to answer and referred to a passage in the code of ethics which says that pharmacists have a personal and professional responsibility for anything that goes wrong at a pharmacy they own.

At a hearing in January 2008, the Disciplinary Committee dismissed the case against the two brothers, accepting legal arguments that there was nothing they could be said to have done wrong. In reaching its decision, the committee referred to a previous case in which an allegation of misconduct against a partner had been rejected, and to Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and to the Common Law.

David Reissner, a partner in Charles Russell LLP and head of its healthcare team, said: “This decision is significant for two reasons: it shows yet again that mere ownership of a pharmacy is not enough to justify disciplinary proceedings if something goes wrong; and regulators like the Royal Pharmaceutical Society are accountable if they take the very serious step of instituting disciplinary proceedings which can have devastating consequences for individuals who may have allegations hanging over their heads for years.”

Rosalyn Hayles, head of investigations and hearings at the Society, said: “The Society will now take some time to consider the implications of this decision but it is too early to comment further at this stage.”