Early resolution for pharmacist facing GPhC fitness to practise investigation
This case involved a pharmacist facing fitness to practise investigation by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) for allegations of drink driving.
This case involved a pharmacist facing fitness to practise investigation by the General Pharmaceutical Council (GPhC) for allegations of drink driving.
Kings View Chambers’ early involvement in this case resulted in achieving undertakings for the pharmacist in a case which would otherwise have resulted in a full General Pharmaceutical Council fitness to practise tribunal.
The pharmacist in this case also commented that he had contact with other solicitors and barristers but did not like their approach and found Kings View Chambers clear, helpful and professional throughout saying:
Catherine Stock has been an amazing pillar of support throughout my investigation with the GPhC. From the moment I made contact with Kings Chambers and Catherine allocated as my barrister, I felt a huge wait lifted. I had been in contact with other law firms and spoke to many barristers, but I didn’t like their approach.
Catherine has a calm and professional manner and you can feel that she cares about you and your case. Catherine is timely and clear in her responses. I would recommend Catherine and Kings Chambers for anyone who finds themselves in an investigation with their professional body.
I cannot thank you enough.
More News & Articles
All GPhC allegations dismissed in full following representations
A pharmacist successfully defended GPhC fitness to practise proceedings, with all allegations withdrawn and dismissed.
Whistleblowing remains a significant source of fitness to practise concerns across healthcare professions
Recent regulatory data suggests that whistleblowing continues to play an important role in bringing potential fitness to practise concerns to the attention of professional regulators across the healthcare sector.
The behaviours most likely to put doctors before a tribunal
Newly published MPTS data for 2025–26 provides a detailed picture of the types of cases reaching substantive hearings and the factors that most commonly lead to findings of impairment, suspension or erasure.

