![\"follow_icon\"](\"https:\/\/cdn.cigdigital.net\/icons\/learning\/follow.svg\")
\n Follow this topic<\/p>\n
In Business news<\/p>\n
\n Follow this topic<\/p>\n
![\"bookmark_icon_off\"\/](\"https:\/\/cdn.cigdigital.net\/icons\/learning\/bookmark-out-record-icon.svg\"){kind=icon}
\n Bookmark<\/p>\n
![\"learning](\"https:\/\/cdn.cigdigital.net\/icons\/learning\/learning-outcomes.svg\")
\n Record learning outcomes<\/p>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/4fa831fed7db36deb7a58f522947ab8a.jpeg\"\/)
<\/p>\n
A Hampshire pharmacy that has been subject to a GPhC enforcement order barring it from dispensing controlled drugs since February 2024 has been removed from the pharmaceutical list over related contractual breaches.\u00a0<\/p>\n
On November 19, Minimax Pharmacy failed in its appeal against Hampshire and Isle of Wight ICB\u2019s decision in July to remove it from the NHS list, NHS Resolution recently revealed.\u00a0<\/p>\n
The Eastleigh pharmacy was put under conditions<\/a> on February 2, 2024 over allegations \u2013 still unproven and under GPhC investigation \u2013 that it was diverting controlled drugs and promethazine medicines from the legitimate supply chain.\u00a0<\/p>\n The pharmacy was told it must not obtain, sell or supply any controlled drugs or medicines containing promethazine.\u00a0<\/p>\n These conditions remain in place, and the pharmacy\u2019s managing director has been under interim suspension orders since February 19, 2024 with the most recent having been imposed in November this year. The pharmacy passed a subsequent GPhC inspection in October 2024.<\/p>\n The ICB issued seven breach notices on February 25 this year over its failure to supply controlled drugs as specified in the NHS terms of service for pharmacies, going on to issue further breach notices on June 3.\u00a0<\/p>\n Having considered the case and noted the GPhC\u2019s stance in June this year that it \u201cremains necessary to retain the conditions,\u201d the ICB found that these breaches were likely to persist \u201cwithout good cause\u201d and on July 10 informed the pharmacy of its decision to remove it from the list.\u00a0<\/p>\n Appeal: \u2018Innocent until proven guilty\u2019<\/p>\n Appealing against the decision on behalf of the pharmacy, solicitors from the firm Temple Bright argued that the company was not in breach of its terms of service because it had \u201cgood cause\u201d for not supplying controlled drugs.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0\u201cThe company cannot be compelled by any terms of service provision to carry out an act which would be unlawful,\u201d they asserted.\u00a0<\/p>\n They said this is \u201cparticularly the case\u201d given that \u201cno adverse findings of fact\u201d have been made concerning the original allegations, adding: \u201cThe company and its officers\/pharmacists are entitled to be considered innocent until proven guilty.<\/p>\n \u201cTo the extent that any interim measures have been put in place by [the GPhC] whilst investigations are ongoing, it would be unfair for those interim measures to be used by the ICB to close the pharmacy.\u201d<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/p>\n However, NHS Resolution\u2019s head of appeals, Vicky Voller, rejected these arguments.\u00a0<\/p>\n Ms Voller took particular notice of the GPhC\u2019s decision in June to refuse Minimax Pharmacy\u2019s application to have the enforcement order lifted, with the regulator telling the company it had failed to \u201cshow evidence of what the pharmacy has implemented to prevent similar issues occurring again if the conditions were to be lifted\u201d.<\/p>\n The GPhC had told Minimax: \u201cThe application focussed more on the impact the conditions have had on the pharmacy as opposed to reflecting on the issues which caused the conditions and how these would be prevented in the future.<\/p>\n \u201cI have ongoing concerns about the pharmacy\u2019s ability to provide this service safely.\u201d<\/p>\n In Ms Voller\u2019s view, the pharmacy\u2019s failure to implement remedial measures between February 2024 and June 2025 showed that it no longer has \u201cgood cause\u201d for continuing to breach its terms of service.\u00a0<\/p>\n Upholding the ICB\u2019s original decision, she commented: \u201cMy view is that it has been within the control of the appellant to take such measures.\u201d<\/p>\n Related: \u2018Over 20\u2019 Jhoots stores face NHS list removal, says minister<\/a><\/p>\n