Appeal Before Privy Council

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31237, 8 December 1966, Page 20

Appeal Before Privy Council

(N.Z.P.A.-Reuter —Copyright)

LONDON, December 5.

A decision of the Court of Appeal of New Zealand on an application by Boots The Chemists (New Zealand), Ltd., in November, 1962, for consent to the establishment of a pharmacy in the new town of Porirua was disputed by the company and also by Boots Pure Drug Company, Ltd., of Nottingham, England, in an appeal before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council today.

There was also a crossappeal by the Chemists’ Service Guild of New Zealand who had opposed the application under provisions of the Pharmacy Amendment Act, 1954.

One purpose of this Act, their Lordships were told, was to preserve independence in proprietors of pharmacies. The Appeal Court, by a majority, found in favour of the guild that the carrying-on by Boots (N.Z.) of a busines in a pharmacy at Porirua would give to Boots (U.K.) — “being a wholesale dealer in drugs”—a direct or indirect estate or interest in the busi-

ness, in breach of Section 13 of the Act.

Mr R. J. Parker, Q.C., who appeared with Mr F. P. Neill, Q.C., for the Boots companies, said that at the time of the application Boots (N.Z.) operated nine retail shops. Their entire share capital had always been beneficially owned by Boots (U.K.). But, at any rate since 1946, Boots (U.K.) had taken no part whatever in the management Or control of the business carried on by Boots (N.Z.). Boots (U.K.) had never carried on business in New Zealand and its activities in relation to New Zealand were of a very limited character.

To open the new pharmacy Boots (N.Z.) required consent from the Pharmacy Authority under the Act, which has as its main purpose the registration of pharmacies and the control of the pharmacy profession. There could be ownership of more than one pharmacy but this was subject to consent.

Mr Parker told Lord Guest, Lord Devlin, Lord Upjohn, Lord Donovan and Lord Pearson that the pharmacy now to question was in fact the fourth which Boots (N.Z.) had sought to open since the 1954 Act.

They had in fact acquired consent to open three, in spite of considerable opposition. In two cases the opposition led to the matter being challenged in the courts.

The present proceedings started as an application by the guild for a writ of prohibition directed to Mr Wilfred Fosberry Stillwell in his capacity as Pharmacy Authority to prohibit him from taking any further steps to hear and determine the application. Mr Stillwell indicated that he wished to take no part in the argument and was given leave to withdraw;