Ramsay case not civil
A CASE brought by the Pharmacy Guild of Australia against Ramsay Health Care relating to pharmacy ownership (PD 17 Sep 2018), has been summarily dismissed by the Supreme Court of NSW.
The Guild and its co-plaintiffs, the owners of Priceline Pharmacy Nowra, South Grafton and Coady’s Pharmacy, claimed Ramsay had broken ownership laws, with the Court ruling it was inappropriate to hear the case because this was a criminal, not a civil matter.
The proceedings against Ramsay Health Care Ltd, Ramsay Pharmacy Retail Services Pty Ltd, Pharmire Pty Ltd and Lekarna Pty Ltd, sought a ruling on whether Ramsay Health Care held a financial interest in a number of pharmacies in regional NSW, in breach of the pharmacy ownership rules.
The Guild claimed that under franchise agreements with the pharmacy owners, Pharmire and Lekarna, Ramsay would have control over the product range supplied through the Ramsaybranded stores, with franchise fees “diverting all or substantially all of the profits from the businesses” to Ramsay.
Court documents warned allowing “large publicly listed multinationals such as the first defendant to develop significant agglomerations of pharmacy businesses” would lead to a significant reduction in the number of community pharmacies in the state.
However, Supreme Court of NSW Equity Division Chief Judge, Justice Julie Ward, said it was “not appropriate for an application for such declaratory relief to be entertained in the context of the present proceedings – a civil suit and one commenced by an industry body (not the regulator) and three competitors of the entities”.
The judge also noted that the pharmacy owners “clearly have a personal interest in eliminating competition, as much as they might also be said to have an interest in enforcing compliance by other pharmacists with the National Law”.
She said the Court was unable to entertain the claim for declaratory relief relating to criminal conduct, and thus the “appropriate order is not simply to strike out the statement of claim but to dismiss the proceedings”.
The Guild told PD it had received the ruling and was reviewing it.