WELCOME TO CHARLES RUSSELL SPEECHLYS.
We would like to place strictly necessary cookies and performance cookies on your computer to improve our website service.
Otherwise, we'll assume you are OK to continue. Please close this message
NHS England appears to have difficulty understanding the new NHS Regulations, and is repeating some errors previously made by PCTs (for example by not providing reasons). Inevitably, this means the number of appeals seems to be rising.
We recently handled a case in which the NHS Litigation Authority strayed from the straight and narrow when dealing with an appeal.
After a PCT refused an application because the applicant had failed to meet one of several conditions required, the NHSLA found that the former PCT (whose decision was then supported by NHS England) had been wrong about that issue.
The NHSLA said it was upholding the appeal on that issue and said NHS England should decide if the applicant satisfied the remaining criteria for granting an application.
The NHSLA should have decided whether the applicant satisfied all the conditions necessary for the grant of the application. The NHSLA had no legal power to send the case back to NHS England.
The applicant argued that NHS England should treat the appeal as fully successful, and should put the applicant in the list of contractors. NHS England said it would do this.
Our client had to apply for judicial review and after much argument, all parties agreed with us that the NHSLA's decision should be overturned.
The GPhC has been in a tizzy about whether someone applying to register premises must have planning permission.
We were seeing cases in which registration had been granted even though planning permission has been refused, and cases where registration has been refused where permission has been sought but not yet granted.
Things came to a head when the GPhC refused to register a client’s premises and time was running out before the grant of an NHS contract lapsed.
Our client had no alternative but to apply for Judicial Review. We secured an expedited hearing for our client. The GPhC then threw in the towel.
It has now revised its procedures for dealing with registration applications and changed its application forms.
The GPhC has made a big thing about not having adequate powers to make test purchases, and needing to ask the Government for powers to carry out intrusive surveillance.
We believe the GPhC already has sufficient power to carry out such purchases.
It is interesting to learn that the GPhC has refused to disclose the guidance it gives to its inspectors for carrying out test purchases, following a request under the Freedom of Information Act.
A new inspection regime is being piloted and the Government has announced that the GPhC will exercise the inspection functions of most other bodies with inspection powers.
We are beginning to see the first appeal decisions under the 2013 NHS Regulations.
It is still too early to identify trends, but the signs are:
Some relocation applications that were refused under the old rules may now be granted, and relocations involving much greater distance may be allowed.
The European Court of Justice will be considering whether it is possible to protect a store layout/design using a registered trade mark. Our Intellectual Property team can provide advice.
Our Pharmacy team has been busy completing transactions for clients, including:
This article was written by David Reissner.
For more information please contact David on +44 (0)20 7203 5065 or firstname.lastname@example.org.