The Northern Irish high court has thrown out Community Pharmacy Northern Ireland’s (CPNI) plea for more funding.

The court ruled last week that CPNI had “no basis whatsoever” for asking the government for more money. The case forms part of a long-running legal battle between the pharmacy negotiator and the government over funding, and is the third time the parties have clashed in court.

The arguments

In the latest case, CPNI challenged the government’s failure to make interim payments to contractors while it investigated fair reimbursement levels for the sector. The Department of Health in Northern Ireland (DHSSPS) agreed to pay £7 million to contractors in 2011-12 and £6m in 2012-13 while it launched a Cost of Service Inquiry (COSI) into pharmacy running costs and profits.

CPNI claimed it had a “legitimate expectation” that the government would continue to make further payments to contractors after 2012-13 because it had not yet completed its inquiry, the court heard.

The negotiator argued DHSSPS had “unlawfully failed to meet” this expectation and had not provided “adequate reasons” for stopping the payments.

It also said that, in failing to complete the COSI, government officials had not fulfilled their obligation to understanding pharmacy running costs before deciding “fair and reasonable remuneration” for the sector.

But the government claimed that its payments to pharmacies were fair. It said that “emerging evidence” shows the profits pharmacists retain from the supply of medicines are “significantly higher” than anticipated, the court heard.

DHSSPS had not refused to make further interim payments, the department argued, and had instead “deferred” considering them until the results of the COSI – launched this month – become available.

DHSSPS also argued that CPNI could not have a “legitimate expectation” that payments would continue after 2012-13 because the government did not make an “unconditional promise” to that effect, the court heard.

The ruling

In the full ruling of the case, seen by C+D last week, Justice Treacy rubbished CPNI’s claim that interim payments should have continued past 2012-13. It is “clear” that the government’s payments in 2011-12 and 2012-13 were intended to be “separate, nonrecurrent payments”, he said.

There is “no evidence” the department is failing to pay “fair and reasonable remuneration” to contractors, the judge said. While there has been a delay in carrying out the COSI, this is because of an “excess of caution” from DHSSPS rather than “any lack of due diligence”, he added.

The judge ruled that CPNI should pay the costs of the case.

CPNI’s lawyer David Reissner told C+D that the organisation may appeal the funding decision.

What do you make of the ruling?

We want to hear your views, but please express them in the spirit of a constructive, professional debate. For more information about what this means, please click here to see our community principles and information