Blooms The Chemist franchisee dispute kicks off in Supreme Court
Make us a preferred source
Make us a preferred source on Google
The news: Blooms The Chemist's dispute with the Pharmacy Council of New South Wales over the council's decision to block a franchisee application got underway on Monday in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
The context: In the first of five days' of hearings in the dispute, Blooms has rejected assertions that its proposed agreement with Tran Pharmacy would result in a financial interest from Blooms in the company.
Existing rules dictate that non-pharmacists must not have a financial interest in pharmacies.
On the other side of the case, the Pharmacy Council has argued the matter should not even be before the Supreme Court, saying the court does not have jurisdiction over the dispute.
The Pharmacy Council rejected an application in February from Tran Pharmacy to register a business in Sydney's Sutherland Shire trading as Blooms the Chemist Cronulla South.
Tran Pharmacy had obtained a loan from Blooms to acquire its 50% interest in the pharmacy.
Appearing before the court on behalf of Blooms today, barrister Stephen Free SC said that the council "declined to register that proposed acquisition because it concluded existing agreements between Tran and Blooms would be such to give Blooms a financial interest in the pharmacy once completed".
"Because Blooms is another pharmacy, [the application] was refused," he said.
Tran Pharmacy has appealed the decision before the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT), in a case that is now on hold while the Supreme Court dispute plays out.
What they said: Appearing on behalf of the Pharmacy Council, Kate Richardson SC said the court should not even be hearing the case.
"Parliament has said the council should be making these decisions and the council has a scheme whereby if Tran disputes [the decision] NCAT is the place for those disputes," she said.
The source: Supreme Court of New South Wales
