Legal update for Spring 2025 from Gordons Partnership

It has been a busy Spring, starting with changes to GPhC guidance on distance selling pharmacies, the shock announcement that NHS England will be abolished and the announcement of new funding for pharmacy with regulatory changes.  

Looking at the last of these first – there are a few key regulatory changes for our clients:  

Goodbye to….the pharmacy practice leaflet, patients who pay for a prescription having to sign prescriptions or tokens, references for staff involved in NHS services and to clinical audit for 25/26.  

It will become easier for pharmacies to change their core opening hours to better meet the needs of patients and other pharmacy users. Importantly this is not a change that allows a reduction in total number of core opening hours. They will need stay the same under this type of application, but we have had success in reducing core opening hours under the existing regulations.  

It is also anticipated that from later this year, Distance Selling Premises pharmacies will no longer be able to provide Advanced and Enhanced NHS services on their premises – they will still be able to provide services off-site or remotely where that is permitted by the service specification.  

There will be a prohibition of subcontracting the provision of the New Medicine Service to alternative providers. From 1st October 2025, the service will also be expanded to include depression. 

The rest of the bulletin covers: 

• Changes to GPhC Guidance for registered pharmacies providing pharmacy services at a distance, including on the internet 

• Case updates 

• Changes to the NHS – the end of NHS England 

• Frequently asked question 

• Property corner - Bringing Your Lease to an End 

 

Changes to GPhC Guidance for registered pharmacies providing pharmacy services at a distance, including on the internet 

The General Pharmaceutical Council has released an updated version of its guidance for online pharmacies. This 2025 revision brings greater clarity to the standards pharmacies must meet, particularly in areas such as prescribing practices, record-keeping, and conflicts of interest. 

Key changes include stricter responsibilities for superintendent pharmacists, enhanced requirements for service agreements with third-party providers, and clearer expectations for prescribing medicines, especially those requiring ongoing monitoring. Additionally, there is a new emphasis on independent verification for weight management medications and risk assessments for patients without regular prescribers. 

While the updates provide more detailed guidance, questions remain about certain areas, such as capacity assessments. Please see article published in C and D here: https://bit.ly/41an1pW 

 

Case updates 

Regulators duty of care to registrants – Suresh & ors v General Medical Council [2025} EWCH 804 (KB)   

A tragic case brought by the family of a doctor who took his own life after being informed of a General Medical Council (GMC) investigation into allegations of sexual assault made by a patient. The High Court found that the GMC does not owe a duty of care to doctors facing investigation. The regulatory framework does not provide for such claims and this outcome is in line with previous cases.  

 

Update on immediate suspension  - General Dental Council v Nabeel Aga [2025] EWCA Civ 68 

The Court of Appeal heard an appeal from the General Dental Council (GDC) regarding the statutory interpretation of the suspension and immediate suspension provisions. 

Provisions that apply to the GDC, as well as equivalent provisions for the GPhC, GMC and others, provide that where a sanction of suspension is handed down, it does not come into effect before the end of the appeal window – 28 days – or the point at which the appeal is withdrawn, struck out or dismissed. To fill this gap, regulatory bodies can apply for an immediate suspension, which remains in place until the sanction of suspension comes into force. There is a statutory maximum period of suspension of 12 months, after which it can be extended.  

The first appeal in this case was brought by Mr Aga. In upholding the appeal, Mr Justice Ritchie held that the time spent on an immediate suspension is part of the period of suspension given as a sanction. Therefore, this meant that it would be a breach of statute for a dentist to be suspended for a combined total, including an immediate suspension, of more than 12 months. 

The GDC appealed this decision to the Court of Appeal, which heard the appeal in January. The three Justices of Appeal agreed that Mr Justice Ritchie misinterpreted the law by treating the immediate suspension and the substantive period of suspension – the sanction period – as one continuous suspension. They also held that the 12-month statutory maximum period of suspension only applied to the period of suspension given as a sanction. 

 

Bartolomucci v Circle Health Group Limited [2025] EWHC 529 (KB) 

In 2022, the Court of Appeal considered the case of Hughes and Rattan. It determined that a dental practice owner who employed self-employed associates held a non-delegable duty to patients, which enabled patients to bring claims solely against the practice. We covered the case in the Spring 2022 update as it could give insights into how the courts would treat liability for negligent acts by locum pharmacists.  

The 2025 decision of Bartolomucci is now part of a body of cases where a claimant is presented with a potential defendant who is unlikely to be able to meet a compensation claim. The claimant then attempts to find other parties who may be able to pay often through a claim based on vicarious liability or non- delegable duty of care. In this case the claimant unusually issued a claim in contract law.  The claim was against a private hospital which employs private consultants. A patient alleged clinical negligence, on the basis that they suffered catastrophic brain injury after a period of low blood pressure whilst anesthetised.  

It was significant that the contract included a provision that consultants “provide their services direct to the patient,” as this would not be done if the constants were employees of the hospital. The court found that there was a contractual relationship between the consultant and the patient. The claim against the defendant hospital was dismissed, as the hospital was not liable for the services provided.  

This differs to the outcome in Hughes v Rattan. A key point to highlight is that the contract given to the Mrs Hughes contained provider’s details, which were that of Dr Rattan, rather than the self-employed dentist providing the treatment. This is in contrast to the contact given to Mr Bartolomucci, containing the details of the consultant providing the treatment.  

 

Freedom of expression  - Benn v General Medical Council [2025] EWHC 87 (Admin) 

The appellant in this matter is a doctor who attended ‘Just Stop Oil’ protests in breach of a High Court injunction, leading to her imprisonment. On this basis, the Medical Practitioners Tribunal determined that she should be suspended from the medical register for five months. Dr Benn appealed this decision on the grounds that the suspension was excessive and disproportionate. 

The appeal was dismissed on the basis that the tribunal was correct that the doctor fell ‘so far short of the standards of conduct reasonably expected as a doctor’ that it was misconduct. Therefore, the tribunal had been correct to find that the doctor’s fitness to practise was impaired. The doctor was entitled to campaign and protest, but repeatedly breaching the injunction resulting in imprisonment did not promote and maintain confidence in the profession. It was also held that the sanction was proportionate.  

 

Re R Walia  - GPhC FtP hearing  - 20-23 January 2025  

A pharmacist was suspended for four months for sharing disproved views that vaccinations cause autism. It was found that by reason of misconduct, the pharmacist’s fitness to practise was impaired. There was concern over the impact on public health of sharing misleading information on vaccinations. As the pharmacist did not attend the hearing it was not clear whether her advice on the effect of vaccination was a fundamental belief or a misunderstanding of the science behind vaccination.  

 

Changes to the NHS – The end of NHS England 

On 13 March 2025, it was announced that NHS England will be abolished – which means that it will be merged with the Department for Health and Social Care, in a process that is expected to be completed within the next two years. The merger will involve a reduction in personnel of 50%, as well as cost cutting goals across the board. There will be a move from one to two medical directors, with one for primary care and one for secondary care. It is yet to be determined how the merger will impact community pharmacies, both during the transition period and after the process has been completed.  

There is some disagreement already about whether new legislation will be needed to achieve the abolishment of NHS England and the redirection of its functions. It has been said that the transition will be disruptive, and working within the existing legislation will enable the easiest transition, as this would allow only certain elements of NHS England’s functions to be brought into the Department of Health and Social Care. However, an alternate view is that this transition will be too large to complete without legislation. It will remain to be seen whether there are significant legislative changes within the next two years.  

 

Frequently asked question 

This edition’s FAQ is about the admissibility of video and audio recordings in regulatory proceedings: 

Q: Can video or audio recordings taken without my consent be used in evidence in regulatory proceedings against me? 

A: Yes. Where a covert recording is taken by an individual who is an ordinary member of the public (not an agent of the state), this is likely to be admissible. It is only where the conduct in obtaining the recording is such that it amounts to an abuse of process that the recording would be inadmissible.  

 

About the Author 

Susan Hunneyball 

Healthcare Regulatory Lawyer 

D.D: 01483 366064 

Tel: 01483 451900 

Email: susan@gordonsols.co.uk 

 

Property corner  

Bringing Your Lease to an End

So, you want to move out of your property and end your lease early.  Can you? 

The answer, like all legal answers is, “it depends”, although (spoiler alert) you probably can’t. 

There are two principal ways that a lease can be broken before the end of the term – by the exercise of a break clause or by agreeing the surrender with your landlord. 

 

Break clause.  Break clauses allow tenants (and sometimes landlords) to break leases before the end of the term.  It is important that, if your lease has a break clause, you are aware of and strictly comply with the terms of the clause.  You must check the “break dates” (the dates on which the lease can be broken) and the notice you have to give the landlord. In addition (and very importantly) you must strictly comply with any conditions that are in the clause – potentially including obligations to pay rents, give back the property empty and (perhaps) comply with the terms of the lease until the end of the notice. 

Surrender by agreement.   you may be able to negotiate the early surrender of the lease although the landlord is not required to accept an early surrender – it is entitled to expect the tenant to remain (and pay rent)for the whole term.  The landlord might agree to an early surrender if you offer a premium or if it has another tenant ready to take the premises, but it doesn’t have too. 

In the absence of a break clause or surrender, you can explore a couple of other options that will limit (but not remove) your liabilities under your lease.  Assuming that your lease permits them, you may assign (“sell” the lease to a new tenant) or underlet (where you remain as tenant, but the property is occupied by another tenant who pays you rent, etc.).  In both these cases, you will no longer occupy the property, but will have continuing obligations in relation to the tenant covenants. 

 

 

Adrian Jones 

Commercial Property Lawyer 

Tel: 01483 451900 

Email: adrian@gordonsols.co.uk  

 

This update should not be taken as advice for any particular circumstance and legal advice should be sought for a specific matter. 

Articles:  

From a lawyer: Online regulations – exactly what has changed? C+D