Pham v Doan

In Pham v Doan, the Supreme Court of New South Wales examined whether a partnership existed between two individuals involved in a business that included aspects of pharmacy, which are statutorily regulated. The dispute arose between Pham, a pharmacist, and Doan, a non-pharmacist, who had entered into an arrangement to operate a business that included a pharmacy. The central issue was whether their partnership could be legally valid given the statutory prohibition on non-pharmacists participating in the "business of a pharmacist" as set out in the Pharmacy Act 1964.

The legal issues before the court were whether the statutory prohibition on non-pharmacists being involved in the business of a pharmacist extended to prohibit the formation of a partnership where the business was not solely the business of a pharmacist but included other elements. The court had to determine whether the statutory prohibition applied to the entire business or if it could be dissected to separate the core elements central to the business of a pharmacist from the other elements of the composite business. This distinction was crucial to deciding the legality of the partnership under the statutory framework.

The court found that the statutory prohibition was aimed at preventing non-pharmacists from being directly involved in the practice of pharmacy, not at prohibiting all forms of business partnerships that include a pharmacy as one component. By examining the nature of the partnership and the roles of each party within the business, the court concluded that the partnership did not contravene the statutory prohibition. The court held that the partnership could continue as long as the non-pharmacist did not engage in activities that constituted the core business of a pharmacist. The decision hinged on the interpretation of the statutory language and the separation of the business into core and non-core elements.

The final orders of the court recognised the partnership between Pham and Doan as valid, subject to the condition that Doan does not engage in activities that fall within the core business of a pharmacist. The court's decision provided clarity on the scope of the statutory prohibition and the potential for partnerships in composite businesses that include a pharmacy.