Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
L Rowland & Company (Retail) Ltd [ Petitioners ] v The National Appeal Panel [ Respondents ] and Healthcare Pharmacies Ltd [ First Interested Parties ]
Judicial review is a remedy whereby the Court of Session may review and if necessary rectify decisions of, for example, tribunals and public authorities where no other form of appeal is available.
� Lord Macphail held that the NAP was entitled to have regard to the number of items dispensed and the number of patients on the GP lists when reaching a view as to the adequacy of the existing provision in the future. The fact that the NAP fell into error by failing to distinguish between probable and speculative future developments did not play a material part in its determination of the issue of adequacy of provision (para. [22]).
Their first two arguments having failed, the petitioners proceeded to raise a third issue as to procedural irregularity and unfairness before the NAP.
� Lord Macphail held that the petitioners had not made any relevant averments of procedural unfairness or irregularity. The fact that the petitioner's representative at the hearing felt intimidated by Healthcare's representative was not important. The fact that a party's representative feels unequal to the task of competing with a skilful, confident and experienced opponent does not mean that the party is the victim of procedural unfairness or irregularity (para. [36]).
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.