General Pharmaceutical Council, R (on the application of) v Ramos [2010] EWHC 2693 (Admin)
[1]MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS: I am satisfied that a suspension was always justified in this case and I am equally satisfied that there has been a proper investigation on behalf of the claimant, and the reasons for the delay are essentially related to the fact that a hearing date which would have been within an 18-month period had to be vacated, because although the defendant indicated that it is very unlikely he will participate in the proceedings, nonetheless he does not accept the witness evidence against him. That means the evidence has to be called and I agree that that has posed difficulties in finding a panel to hear it. A hearing which would have been within the 18-month period was vacated and the hearing is due to take place in March of next year, and on the basis of the public interest in particular in maintaining a suspension, I grant the order sought.[2]MR RAMASAMY: I am grateful. There is a draft order which I may hand up. Whilst it is being handed up may I say the draft order has made reference to costs. I have taken instructions and whilst the reason the case has to go so far into the future is due to listing availability we don't press the application for costs in all the circumstances.[3]MR JUSTICE WYN WILLIAMS: Very well. Thank you very much. So I shall delete that, but otherwise approve the order.