Pharmacist Suspended Again for Dishonest Indemnity Insurance Declarations and Prolonged Uninsured Practice

Date of Decision: February 26, 2026

Registrant's Role: Pharmacist

Allegations:

  • Between approximately 19 August 2020 and 15 July 2021, the registrant failed to ensure that Pharmacy 1 held appropriate professional indemnity insurance.
  • On 16 February 2021, the registrant submitted a false declaration to the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) stating that appropriate indemnity or insurance arrangements were in place for services provided at Pharmacy 1.
  • On 30 July 2021, the registrant submitted a false personal declaration to the GPhC stating that he had appropriate indemnity insurance through a personal arrangement or employer.
  • Between 18 February 2021 and 14 June 2022, the registrant dispensed approximately 93 prescription-only medicines (POMs) in the absence of professional indemnity insurance.
  • Between 15 June 2021 and 14 June 2022, the registrant failed to ensure appropriate professional indemnity insurance cover was in place for Pharmacy 2.
  • On 20 May 2021, in a premises registration application for Pharmacy 2, the registrant declared that professional indemnity and public liability insurance had been arranged as of “day one”.
  • The conduct relating to the false declarations lacked integrity and/or was dishonest, in that:
  • The registrant knew indemnity insurance was required from “day one”.
  • He knew that appropriate indemnity insurance was not in place and that no arrangements had been made to secure it.
  • He did not take immediate steps to obtain indemnity insurance after making the declarations.

Outcome: Suspension extended for a further six months, with review.

GPhC Standards Breached:

  • Standard 1 – Provide person-centred care
  • Standard 6 – Behave professionally
  • Standard 8 – Speak up when you have concerns or when things go wrong
  • Standard 9 – Demonstrate leadership

Case Summary

This case concerns a principal review hearing before the General Pharmaceutical Council’s Fitness to Practise Committee on 26 February 2026, following a previous six-month Suspension Order imposed in August 2025. The registrant, a superintendent pharmacist operating two private pharmacy premises, had previously been found to have practised for a prolonged period without professional indemnity insurance and to have made dishonest declarations to the regulator.

The review focused on whether the registrant’s fitness to practise remained impaired and, if so, what sanction was appropriate.

Allegations

Continue Reading the Full Case

Create a free account or log in to access the complete case summary.

  • Full allegations considered by the GPhC
  • Panel findings and reasoning
  • Outcome of the investigation
  • Sanctions considered and imposed on the Pharmacist
  • Key professional learning points

Register for Free or Log In

Original Case Document

View the Full Determination Document

The original determination transcript is available to registered users.

  • Download the official GPhC determination
  • Full hearing transcript
  • Detailed findings of fact
  • Sanction reasoning
  • Details of the pharmacy professionals involved

Register for Free or Log In

Leave a Reply