Almost every week, there is a steady stream of cases in which healthcare regulators ask the High Court to grant an extension of an interim suspension imposed by a Fitness to Practise Committee because the regulators are not ready to progress to a final hearing before the interim suspension runs out. One of the most recent cases is GPhC v Kotey [2026] EWHC 1632 (Admin).
Few details of the allegations are published in interim order cases, but it appears that Mr Kotey was the superintendent pharmacist of a company with a pharmacy in Basingstoke. He is a supplementary and independent prescriber.
In December 2022, the GPhC imposed a condition that prohibited the pharmacy from providing a prescribing service, meaning it could not issue private prescriptions that had been written by anyone working for the pharmacy. This appears to have been a condition imposed by the Registrar of the General Pharmaceutical Council against which there is no right of appeal (see Chair’s blog of 14 June 2026).
In late 2023, GPhC inspectors visited the pharmacy on two occasions to monitor compliance with the condition. Significant concerns then arose in relation to what had been taking place during 2023 regarding (as described by the judge) “the medication and the prescription of such, including a very significant number of drugs”.
On 14 December 2023, Mr Kotey was suspended by the Fitness to Practise Committee for the maximum initial period of 18 months. The Crown Prosecution Service investigated possible criminal offences, so the fitness to practise case could not proceed at that time. The interim suspension was extended in 2024, 2025 and 2026.
On 18 January 2026, the Crown Prosecution Service confirmed that it did not intend to bring a prosecution. The GPhC sought a 10-month extension of the interim suspension and Mr Kotey’s lawyer argued that the CPS decision changed the balance of things and that the interim suspension should not be extended any further.
The application to extend came before Mr Tom Little KC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) on 12 June. The judge recognised the continuing prejudice to Mr Kotey of not being able to practise pending a final hearing but he took account of the allegations, which he described as “extremely serious”, and the risk of harm to patients. The judge was not persuaded that the decision of the CPS not to prosecute made any difference: the fact that the CPS investigation did not lead to a prosecution for specific criminal offences missed the point of the nature of the regulatory regime which has a different standard of proof. On the facts of this case, the judge held that a 10-month extension of the interim suspension was necessary and proportionate.