DAVID PIEVSKY KC
DAVID PIEVSKY KC :
Introduction
In this claim for judicial review the Claimant challenges a decision made by a committee of Primary Care Appeals (“PCA”), a service provided by the Defendant. On 25 November 2024 the PCA committee refused the Claimant’s application for inclusion in the pharmaceutical list for distance selling premises under Regulation 25 of the NHS (Pharmaceutical and Local Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 2013 (“the 2013 Regulations”). The consequence is that the Claimant is not permitted to operate the distance selling of medicines for the NHS.
As will be apparent from the factual summary set out below, the PCA committee’s main reason for refusing the application was that it was not satisfied that the Claimant would be delivering medicines safely and effectively, particularly by reference to the need to keep them at the correct temperatures throughout the delivery process.
- Heading
- DAVID PIEVSKY KC
- Factual background
- The proceedings
- Procedural matters
- The Claimant’s failure to comply with the Court’s 17 June 2025 Order
- Should the Deputy Judge’s “costs in the case” ruling be replaced with “no order as to costs, irrespective of the outcome of the proceedings”?
- The substantive issues
- Ground 3
- Conclusions
![AC-2025-LON-000553 - [2025] EWHC 2616 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png)