Health Care Complaints Commission v Abdallah [2025] NSWCATOD 106;

1. As foreshadowed above, we now set out the FAC in full:

"FURTHER AMENDED COMPLAINT

The Health Care Complaints Commission of Level 12, 323 Castlereagh Street, Sydney NSW, having consulted with the Pharmacy Council of NSW in accordance with sections 39(2) and 90B(3) of the Health Care Complaints Act 1993 and section 145A of the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) ("the National Law")

HEREBY COMPLAINS THAT

Mr Elie Abdallah ("the practitioner") of Georges Hall being a Pharmacist registered under the National Law,

COMPLAINT ONE

is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct under section 139B(1)(a) of the National Law in that the practitioner has engaged in conduct that demonstrates the knowledge, skill or judgment possessed, or care exercised, by the practitioner in the practice of pharmacy is significantly below the standard reasonably expected of a practitioner of an equivalent level of training or experience.

BACKGROUND TO COMPLAINT ONE

The practitioner obtained a Bachelor of Pharmacy from the University of Sydney in 2002 and was first registered as a pharmacist in NSW on 16 December 2002. At the relevant time, the practitioner was the sole proprietor of Discover Pharmacy Georges Hall ("the Pharmacy") and was working at the Pharmacy approximately two and a half days per week.

PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINT ONE

Patient A

1. Between 5 January 2020 and 26 November 2021 at the Pharmacy the practitioner dispensed, or as the proprietor permitted to be dispensed, drugs listed in Schedule 8 of the Poisons Standard (Cth) ("Schedule 8 drugs"), to Patient A, in the quantities and on the dates set out in Schedule B, such that the quantity and / or interval at which the drug was dispensed did not accord with the recognised therapeutic standards, contrary to Clause 109 of the Poisons and Therapeutic Goods Regulation 2008 NSW ("PTGR"), in circumstances where:

a. Patient A was attending the Pharmacy with Schedule 8 and Schedule 4D drug prescriptions on a regular basis;

b. on multiple occasions, two or more Benzodiazepines were concurrently dispensed in a single day, as set out in Schedule B;

c. on multiple occasions, two Opioids were concurrently dispensed in a single day, as set out in Schedule B;

d. on multiple occasions, a Schedule 8 Opioid was concurrently dispensed with two or more Benzodiazepines in a single day, as set out in Schedule B;

e. the practitioner failed to recognise the possibility of drug dependence, diversion and / or misuse by Patient A and address that possibility with the prescriber.

2. Between 5 January 2020 and 26 November 2021 at the Pharmacy the practitioner dispensed, or as the proprietor permitted to be dispensed, drugs listed in Appendix D of the PTGR ("Schedule 4D.drugs"), to Patient A in the quantities and on the dates set out in Schedule B, such that the quantity and / or interval at which the drug was dispensed did not accord with the recognised therapeutic standards, contrary to Clause 54 of the PTGR, in circumstances where:

a. Patient A was attending the Pharmacy with Schedule 8 and Schedule 4D drug prescriptions on a regular basis;

b. on multiple occasions, two or more Benzodiazepines were concurrently dispensed in a single day, as set out in Schedule B;

c. on multiple occasions, two Opioids were concurrently dispensed in a single day, as set out in Schedule B;

d. on multiple occasions, a Schedule 8 Opioid was concurrently dispensed with two or more Benzodiazepines in a single day, as set out in Schedule B;

e The practitioner failed to recognise the possibility of drug dependence, diversion and / or misuse by Patient A and address that possibility with the prescriber.

...

4. Between 22 January 2020 and 26 November 2021 at the Pharmacy, on the dates set out in Schedule B, the practitioner inappropriately dispensed, or as the proprietor permitted to be inappropriately dispensed a Schedule 8 drug, Alprazolam (Kalma) to Patient A, in circumstances where:

a. the drug was prescribed to Patient A across a period of over 8 months;

b. the practitioner had not requested any proof that an authority from the NSW Ministry of Health had been obtained by the prescriber.

Patient B

5. Between 5 January 2020 and 26 November 2021 at the Pharmacy the practitioner dispensed, or as the proprietor permitted to be dispensed, Schedule 8 drugs to Patient B, in the quantities and on the dates set out in Schedule B, such that the quantity and / or interval at which the drug was dispensed did not accord with the recognised therapeutic standards, contrary to Clause 109 of the PTGR, in circumstances where:

a. Patient B was attending the Pharmacy with Schedule 8 and Schedule 4D drug prescriptions on a regular basis;

b. on multiple occasions, two or more Benzodiazepines were concurrently dispensed to Patient B in a single day, as set out in Schedule B;

c. on multiple occasions, two Opioids were concurrently dispensed to Patient B in a single day, as set out in Schedule B;

d. on multiple occasions, a Schedule 8 Opioid was concurrently dispensed with two or more Benzodiazepines to Patient B, in a single day.

6. Between 5 January 2020 and 26 November 2021 at the Pharmacy the practitioner dispensed, or as the proprietor permitted to be dispensed, Schedule 4D drugs, to Patient B in the quantities and on the dates set out in Schedule B, such that the quantity and / or interval at which the drug was dispensed did not accord with the recognised therapeutic standards, contrary to Clause 54 of the PTGR, in circumstances where:

a. Patient B was attending the Pharmacy with Schedule 8 and Schedule 4D drug prescriptions on a regular basis;

b. On regular occasions, two or more Benzodiazepines were concurrently dispensed to Patient B in a single day, as set out in Schedule B;

c. On two occasions, two Opioids were concurrently dispensed to Patient B in a single day, as set out in Schedule B;

d. On regular occasions, a Schedule 8 Opioid was concurrently dispensed with two or more Benzodiazepines to Patient B in a single day, as set out in Schedule B.

7. Between 5 January 2020 and 26 November 2021, at the Pharmacy the practitioner failed to address the possibility of dependence, diversion, or misuse of medications by Patient B with the prescriber, in circumstances where:

a. Patient B was attending the Pharmacy with Schedule 8 and Schedule 4D drug prescriptions on a regular basis;

b. Patterns of dispensing, as described in Particulars [5] and [6] above should have raised such concerns;

c. The practitioner did not request any proof that an authority from the NSW Ministry of Health had been obtained by the prescriber.

Patient F

8. Between 5 January 2020 and 26 November 2021 at the Pharmacy the practitioner dispensed, or as the proprietor permitted to be dispensed, Schedule 8 drugs to Patient F, in the quantities and on the dates set out in Schedule B, such that the quantity and / or interval at which the drug was dispensed did not accord with the recognised therapeutic standards, contrary to Clause 109 of the PTGR, in circumstances where:

a. Patient F was attending the Pharmacy with Schedule 8 and Schedule 4D drug prescriptions on a regular basis;

b. on multiple occasions, a Schedule 8 Opioid, namely Oxycodone, was concurrently dispensed with Schedule 4D drugs, Pregabalin and Diazepam, to Patient F in a single day;

c. the prescription presented by Patient F for the Pregabalin referred to at [b] was from a different prescriber to the prescriptions presented for the Schedule 8 Opioid and Diazepam referred to at [b];

d. there was no evidence that the two different prescribers were aware that Patient F was taking the combination of medications referred to at [b];

e. there was no evidence to confirm that potential drug interactions between Oxycodone, Diazepam and Pregabalin had been considered by either prescriber;

f. the practitioner failed to recognise the possibility of drug dependence, diversion and / or misuse by Patient F and address that possibility with either prescriber.

8A. Between 5 January 2020 and 26 November 2021 at the Pharmacy the practitioner dispensed, or as the proprietor permitted to be dispensed, Schedule 4D drugs, to Patient F, in the quantities and on the dates set out in Schedule B, such that the quantity and / or interval at which the drug was dispensed did not accord with the recognised therapeutic standards, contrary to Clause 54 of the PTGR in circumstances where:

a. Patient F was attending the Pharmacy with Schedule 8 and Schedule 4D drug prescriptions on a regular basis;

b. on multiple occasions, a Schedule 8 Opioid, Oxycodone, was concurrently dispensed with Schedule 4D drugs, Pregabalin and Diazepam, to Patient F in a single day;

c. the prescription presented by Patient F for the Pregabalin referred to at [b] was from a different prescriber to the prescriptions presented for the Schedule 8 Opioid and Diazepam referred to at [b];

d. there was no evidence that the two different prescribers were aware that Patient F was taking the combination of medications referred to at [b];

e. there was no evidence that potential drug interactions between Oxycodone, Diazepam and pregabalin had been considered by either prescriber;

f. the practitioner failed to recognise the possibility of drug dependence, diversion and / or misuse by Patient F and address that possibility with either prescriber.

10. Between 5 January 2020 and 26 November 2021 at the Pharmacy, on the dates set out in Schedule B, the practitioner dispensed, or as the proprietor permitted to be dispensed, multiple supplies of Pregabalin to Patient F in a single day, contrary to Regulation 49 of the National Health (Pharmaceutical Benefits) Regulations 2017 (Cth) and Guideline 3 of the Pharmacy Board of Australia's Guideline for dispensing of medicines.

Other matters

11. Between 11 January 2019 and 24 August 2021 at the Pharmacy, the practitioner dispensed various Schedule 4 medications in the quantities and on the dates set out in Schedule C, without a corresponding prescription, and later supplied those medications to family members as outlined in Schedule C, in circumstances where:

a. large quantities of those medications were supplied by the practitioner to family members overseas;

b. one of the medications so supplied, Hequine tablets (hydroxychloroquine), was in short supply in Australia at the time due to the Covid-19 Pandemic.

12. Between 5 January 2020 and 26 November 2021 at the Pharmacy, the practitioner failed to discharge his obligations as the proprietor of the Pharmacy when he:

a. failed to maintain an adequate Schedule 8 drug register, contrary to Clause 112 and 118 of the PTGR;

b. failed to provide adequate proprietor oversight on the practice of supplying medication to a patient as an "owing", without a valid prescription script

COMPLAINT TWO

The practitioner is guilty of professional misconduct under section 139E of the National Law in that the practitioner has:

i. engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify suspension or cancellation of the practitioner's registration, and/or

ii. engaged in more than one instance of unsatisfactory professional conduct that, when the instances are considered together, amount to conduct of a sufficiently serious nature to justify the suspension or cancellation of the practitioner's registration.

PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINT TWO

13. The particulars to Complaint One are repeated and relied upon individually and cumulatively.

Dated: 6 February 2025"

1. The "Reply" upon which Mr Abdallah relies was in the following terms:

"Complaint 1 and 2

I can confirm I will be representing myself and will not be challenging the case against me on all counts. I accept I did not perform to the standard of professional conduct within meaning of the National Law [i.e., Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW)]. I also confirm that I failed to perform my duties to the standards I impose on myself as a practicing (sic) pharmacist and business owner of 22 years and 15 years, respectively.

This is deeply upsetting as I am a proud pharmacist and passionate about my role, service and care I provide my community. A community I have worked tirelessly to grow, serve and nurture for 15 years. I believe the community I have developed, strengthened by the loyalty of my patients is a testament to the dedication and passion I have poured into my role as the local community pharmacist.

I am greatly remorseful and apologetic for any adverse effect on my community. My suspension (and a potential cancellation of my registration) has essentially removed me from a community I am committed to. It has deprived me from my passion and purpose. I have been unable to serve my community, advise my patients or earn an income as a pharmacist for over 2 years and 9 months. I have been left at a significant loss both emotionally and financially as I have had to make major life changing decisions to adhere to my suspension. However, I am trying to hold onto the hope of one day returning to serve my community and practice (sic) as a pharmacist at the utmost standard.

In reference to "Orders Sought" in the application, I will not be challenging the order of a non-review period of 12 months. I am committed to adhering to the order/s of my suspension and or cancellation. I have intention to return to my role as a pharmacist with satisfactory professional conduct, once permitted to do so. I am willing to part take (sic) in any disciplinary actions deemed necessary by the pharmacy council in order to retain my license.

The Applicants request to a costing order will impose a significant financial burden on me. I am currently unemployed and have been since my suspension. I seek that the commission and court review this order in their deliberations. In the event costings are determined I ask for leniency and grace."

1. In an email response to the HCCC on Wednesday, 27 November 2024 (Ex H1), Mr Abdallah said, inter alia, that he admits all the particulars in relation to both Complaints One and Two, that he would attend a hearing, and that he would not require the HCCC's expert, Dr Helen Benson, for cross-examination.
2. In his oral evidence (T, pp 35-6) he confirms the fulsome admissions he applied to the FAC, and that his "Reply" was all the written material he wished to provide to the Tribunal.
3. We do, however, note that, among the HCCC materials, there are also several statements etc. authored by Mr Abdallah which contain valuable admissions to which the Tribunal has also had regard.

1. Apart from Exhibit H1, to which reference has already been made, the HCCC has relied upon:

(1) Exhibit H2 - a bundle of documents filed by it on 5 December 2024 (858 pages);

(2) Exhibit H3 - a letter from HCCC to the Tribunal, dated 5 December 2024, listing materials in Exhibit H2 upon which it does not rely (i.e., those "relevant to patients other than ...A, B and F");

(3) Exhibit H4 - a supplementary bundle of documents filed by the HCCC on 19 December 2024 (47 pages); and

(4) Exhibit H5 - evidentiary certificates concerning Mr Abdallah's registration as a pharmacist.

1. Mr Abdallah objected to none of the HCCC's tenders, and tendered nothing in his own case in response.
2. In addition, the HCCC provided extensive written submissions from its Solicitor Advocate, Emma Bayley, dated 6 February 2025, supported by a detailed chronology of events.
3. That chronology notes (pars 4-8) that Mr Abdallah was, at all material times, subject to the following documents which are included in the HCCC material (Ex H2, pp 703-858):

4. Pharmacy Board of Australia (PBA) Code of Conduct;

5. NSW Health Guide to Poisons and Therapeutic Goods (PTG) Legislation for Pharmacists;

6. PBA Guidelines for

a. Proprietor Pharmacists; and

b. Practice Specific Issues

7. PBA Guidelines for Dispensing Medicines

8. Pharmaceutical Society of Australia (PSA) Code of Ethics (endorsed by the PBA).

as well as the Code of Conduct for Pharmacists, and the Code of Ethics for Pharmacists.

1. Like Mr Abdallah, the Panel did not require the HCCC's expert, Dr Helen Benson, to attend in person to discuss her expert report, and her supporting materials of late 2023 (Ex H2, pp 426-532).
2. Dr Benson is an experienced community pharmacist, first registered in NSW in July 2000. She has been sole proprietor of a registered pharmacy (2010-2013), and since then has been a senior lecturer in pharmacy practice, an independent consultant pharmacist, and a part-time community pharmacist (her CV is in Exhibit H2, at pp 447-452).
3. She meticulously examined in her report the HCCC's evidence concerning patients A, B and F (and other customers), and family members A and B, and on each relevant aspect opined that Mr Abdallah's conduct fell "significantly below the standard required of both a practicing (sic) pharmacist and pharmacist proprietor of an equivalent level of training and experience", and that he failed to comply with relevant legislative requirements, including those requiring that scheduled medications be supplied "only... with a valid prescription", and that a drug register be kept, kept up to date, and regularly checked.
4. Mr Abdallah's admitted failures in respect of the register also mean, in her opinion, that his behaviour "falls significantly below the standard required of a pharmacist proprietor of an equivalent level of training and experience" (p 445).
5. As long ago as a counselling session on 20 February 2020, Mr Abdallah was reminded of his oversight responsibilities in such matters, as an owner (Ex H4, p 44).
6. Dr Benson came to a similar conclusion in respect of compliance with the mandated "owing prescription" records (p 446), but she admitted to a lack of relevant experience in relation to expressing any opinion on alleged failures by Mr Abdallah in respect of "compounding best practice" (p 446).
7. Mr Abdallah made no submissions in response to his being supplied with Dr Benson's report in 2024 (T, p 34, line 43). He told the Tribunal (T, p 35, lines 4-10):

"Look, if you didn't know me and you just look at what's been written, you'd have to accept it, but knowing me personally and those who can vouch for me and that works with me and the patients that I've dealt with, they wouldn't have that same assessment that the expert has given. I'm not questioning what she's written if its correct or incorrect but based on what the Panel sees and yourself then you can make that as - what she's written there is probably correct".

1. Mr Abdallah is a man of Lebanese background, who obtained his Bachelor of Pharmacy degree from the University of Sydney in 2002, and was first registered as a pharmacist around 16 December 2002 (Ex H5).
2. After an internship and some locum appointments, he apparently managed a pharmacy at Croydon Park for some four years, before acquiring his own pharmacy business in 2010.
3. He is now in his mid-forties, and he and his wife have daughters aged nine and six, and a son born in August 2022, who has a "major congenital condition", which will apparently require life-long attention (T, p 49, line 47-p 50, line 7).
4. He admits too that this family health burden, coming on top of his professional difficulties, has predisposed him to depression (T, p 50, lines 5-14).
5. When he first came to adverse regulatory attention in late 2019, he had interests in five pharmacies, but has always spent most of his time at "Discover Pharmacy" in Georges Hall, of which he had become sole proprietor in January 2010. His is relevantly the only pharmacy in that suburban area.
6. At the time of the Tribunal hearing in this present matter, he remained sole proprietor at Georges Hall, and held a 25% interest in "Discover Pharmacy" in Wolli Creek. In October 2024, having been suspended in April 2022, Mr Abdallah disposed of his remaining interest (variously stated as one-third or 50% in the material) in a third pharmacy, located in Condell Park - "... I had to sell out to be able to... look after the family..." (T, p 36, lines 36-7).
7. He willingly submitted to cross-examination by the HCCC representative (Ms Bayley) at the hearing. He adhered to his "Reply", and to Ex H1. Some salient points from the transcript of his evidence are noted as follows:

(1) He conceded that he too readily trusted, and accepted prescriptions written by, "Dr KL", a General Practitioner (GP) of some 40 years standing in the Georges Hall area, and should have checked that the prescriptions had truly emanated from pain specialists reporting to Dr KL (T, pp 23, 26, 29 and 34);

(2) There was a 90% drop in offending prescriptions when Dr KL left practice (T, p 32, lines 3-10);

(3) Mr Adbdallah readily conceded his failures as an owner (eg, T, p 13, lines 16-25), and that he "lost sight of what was important in terms of patient care" (T, p 37, lines 30-1);

(4) He readily admitted fault in respect of sending medications, without prescription, but at his own personal cost, to members of his extended family in Lebanon, but sought to justify it on humanitarian grounds (see for example, T, p 15, lines 35-50, and also T, pp 28 and 38);

(5) He conceded the expert's criticism that he risked "misdiagnosis or inappropriate prescribing" when he practised outside the scope of his professional expertise (T, p 16, lines 40-4);

(6) He conceded that he often failed to read official documents, product information brochures, Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) alerts, etc, closely or in full, or to apply them (T, p 17, line 17-p 19, line 12);

(7) He conceded that, after counselling in February 2020, he made improvements in his performance as an owner, but that his performance soon slipped "back to our old habits", a failure he blamed on being "inundated and under a lot of stress and pressure at the time" (T, p 19, line 39-p 20, line 5);

(8) He admitted that he finds it hard to say "no" to his customers, and too readily accepted that they had lost their prescriptions (T, p23, lines 1-13), even though losing a prescription can be a "red flag" indicating addiction or diversion (lines 15-16);

(9) He admitted belatedly learning from "SafeScript" training in March 2022 that the problems of drug addiction and diversion in the community were far more serious than he had thought (T, p 24);

(10) He readily conceded that the remedial actions he has taken have been inadequate (e.g., the dispensing protocol - T, p 27, line 9-p 28, line 9) and/or too late (e.g., joining professional organisations and installing alerts in his dispensing software - T, p 24, line 46-p 25, line 24);

(11) Prior to his regulatory difficulties, he did not think that he needed help or advice (T, p 11, lines 42-4) and he had done no continuing professional development (CPD) on opioid use (lines 48-50). He was only vaguely familiar with the key codes, guidelines etc (see, generally, T, pp 12-14);

(12) He now concedes that supplying his own immediate family with prescription medication without any prescription posed "some element of risk" (T, p 34, lines 35-8);

(13) He did not do the PSA ethics course as he had intended, and says that that was because he has been depressed (T, p 42, lines 1-22);

1. At the end of Ms Bayley's questioning, Mr Abdallah affirmed that he was not challenging the suggested 12 month non-renew period, and then he had this exchange with her (T, p 38, line 43-p 39, line 23):

"Q. What is it that you're going to do during that 12 month period so that at a later point a Tribunal can be satisfied that you can be trusted as a robust and effective gatekeeper, after engaging in this conduct for so long?

A. Look - this has been the hardest three years of my life, since the day they walked into the pharmacy, the PRU that is. Upon reflection, you know, I have had three years now to reflect on this and every day its on my mind. I sleep with it on my mind. I wake up with it on my mind. What I'm going to do, if I'm allowed to work that is. Even as a pharmacy assistant, if the Tribunal allows me that, I'll get a mentor to be - to assist me in overcoming the challenges that I've had in the past. I'll be doing furthering education. I'll attend courses that are required or dictated by the Tribunal. And I'll do my own courses also on top of that. I'll do some community service, to service the community free of charge. I'll go out there and help out with the poor, with food or whatever it is I've got to do, I'll do it. But the aim for me is, I want to be able to get back in to practice. This is a vocation that I've toiled so hard to get into. I achieved it and then I burned my own, burned my own tyres, as they say. And hopefully you can see how sincere I am about it, that I do want to get back in, I do want to do the right things. I do want to be able to reengage with the community that I've worked with. I've looked after their health, their family's health, their kids health. That interaction, that human interaction that I've missed for the last three years, it's - it's been a difficult one. And if anyone has ever practised as a pharmacist, they would know what I'm talking about. Notwithstanding all the failures that I've committed and I have owned up to multiple times now, and I continue to do so, it's brought a huge shame and embarrassment really that I'm here having to fight for it. And so I should. I am fighting for it. I am just seeking a bit of clemency, a bit of leniency in that regard. You can see how sincere I am about it, and I have not really shifted my responsibilities as to the wrongs that were done. I took on full responsibility from the first day. From the PRU meeting, to the Council and now to here. And throughout all my submissions I have said I am at fault. I'm not even - I'm not even represented here. I'm representing myself."

1. As presiding member, I then asked him why he did not do, or at least begin, some of those things in the last three years. He replied that the counselling he had in the first year made him feel worse, so he stopped it. He apprehended that he could not work, even unpaid, in a pharmacy, and so could not access a mentor. He said: "No one told me what I should be doing or shouldn't be doing" (T, p 40, lines 8-9) and "...its put a huge... emotional, financial and professional toll on me and the whole family" (lines 13-14).
2. He then continued (lines 16-26):

"So we're trying to deal with it and like I said, I've already had to sell up one business to be able to afford you know a lifestyle for the family and I'll do what it takes to get back in. I'm just seeking that clemency. Like, I've already served three years and I've put up my hand saying I am at fault. So three years, put up my hand and said I'm at fault and then now the Commission is asking for a further 12 months. Like, that's close to four years on the sidelines. That's a huge, huge suspension. A huge suspension and I accept that what I've done is wrong but to take it for four years. I didn't really cause anyone to go to hospital or injure anyone. There was no intent or any malice behind any of the actions that I did. If there's a character flaw, it was that I was too nice and it is a character flaw lets say but I'll take the necessary counselling for that."

1. Panel member Sinclair asked him (T, p 42) about a PRU inspection on 17 April 2019 at Revesby Discount Drug Store. As deficiencies were identified by the PRU, Mr Abdallah was asked why the experience had not "rung the bell" for him to look at his Georges Hall practice (line 40). Mr Abdallah had initiated that Revesby investigation as the owner of the business because of irregular behaviour by an employed pharmacist who was eventually "found guilty", he did not address the Tribunal's question about "ringing a warning bell" for the Georges Hall pharmacy operation (see also T, p 48, lines 1-49).
2. When asked about his experience with the psychologist, Mr Abdallah responded (T, p 45, lines 40-6):

"I think if you ever contact any of my patients at the pharmacy they'll tell you what sort of person I am. That... I'm also... a fantastic guy. He looks after us. He does the free home deliveries. He's accommodating. I go out there, I shake their hands. So that persona streak continues through from home to the workplace. Because I don't see the workplace as work, I see it as an extension of my house or extension of the family. That's how I was treating my patients."

"What I'm seeking from the Tribunal is that [you] see... a person in front of you that's willing to make the changes, the necessary changes to get back into the pharmacy. And I want to go and back into - even if it's as a pharmacist's assistant, which is extremely humbling for someone like me who has been doing this for 22 years, you know. I am happy then to do that and work as an assistant. And if that doesn't show dedication to the cause and to working I don't know what else will. What else is going to take it to convince the tribunal or council that this person is really committed. But I will do it for unpaid work too."

1. Mr Abdallah also explained that he did not "reach out to the Guild" because of what he called "a mindset issue" (T, p 47, lines 18-27). He feels that until the Tribunal decision is made, he is "just in limbo" (line 32). He later added that getting back into pharmacy will relieve the mindset and "normalise" his existence (T, p 50, lines 42-50), but he fell short of acknowledging that he would seek more professional help (T, p 51, lines 3-36).
2. At the very end of his oral evidence, Member Sinclair asked Mr Abdallah if he was aware of the legislative requirement that he divest himself of his interest in pharmacies if his registration is cancelled, and he confirmed he was (T, p 54, lines 18-23).
3. He has not worked since his suspension (T, p 36) and has become a "house daddy" (T, p 46). He has done only "personal study" and no serious CPD. He has relied on the income he receives as an owner, and on the proceeds of the sale of his interest in one pharmacy.
4. He sees his return to the industry, even as an assistant with a mentor, as the solution to all of his worries, and says (T, p 39) that he will leave it to the Tribunal (and presumably regulators) to prescribe what further education he requires.
5. He is prepared to do "community service", but has not done any as yet. He appealed to the Tribunal again for "leniency" or "clemency", on the basis that he "took on full responsibility from the first day", and "you can see how sincere I am about it". He seemed to expect some special consideration because he had readily admitted fault, and had chosen to appear unrepresented (see, generally, T, p 39).

1. Mr Abdallah was anxious to claim some credit for the regulatory intervention at the Revesby pharmacy in 2019, despite the fact that it ended up also involving an examination of his own inadequate conduct as a proprietor.
2. The misbehaviour the subject of the present complaint had commenced at Georges Hall earlier in 2019 (around January) and he continued that misbehaviour well beyond the Revesby investigation until at least late 2021 (but cf T, p 64, lines 41-6).
3. Following the counselling he undertook after the Revesby investigation, the counselling report dated 9 March 2020 observed (Ex H4, p 45) that Mr Abdallah "demonstrated insight and indicated he had made appropriate changes in practice to ensure he has proprietor oversight of his businesses".
4. Having found counselling personally unproductive, and possibly harmful to his mental health, Mr Abdallah turned to prayer, church activities, fasting, talking to his clergy, etc (see T, pp 65-6).
5. As we examine the documentary evidence, and the transcript of his oral evidence at the hearing regarding Georges Hall some five years later, the members of this Panel can find no insight on Mr Abdallah's part at all, and any changes in his practice would appear to have been perfunctory and transitory at best.
6. The time periods in the Schedules to the Complaint indicate the seriousness of his wrongdoing, but he relies on the fact that "no one was hurt", and on his misplaced trust in Dr KL. He has been shown to be at least naïve, if not reckless.
7. He has not demonstrated to the Tribunal that he can (yet) be "trusted as a robust and effective gatekeeper" ensuring safe dispensing of dangerous medicines (T, p 38, lines 44-5). Nor did he demonstrate any appreciation that the role of this Tribunal is future community protection, and not punishment or forgiveness, of his past wrongdoing.
8. He accepted in his evidence (T, p 37, lines 17-20) that his conduct posed a risk to the public, but suggests that he should be allowed to resume practice because he is personally well regarded in the local community (for doing free home deliveries, attending funerals, parties, etc), and feels "really humbled" by the complaint experience.
9. Beyond accepting his admissions, this Tribunal is entirely satisfied that the complaints against Mr Abdallah have been made out, and that he is guilty of "unsatisfactory professional conduct" sufficiently serious to amount to "professional misconduct". In this respect, we accept in full, without repeating them here, the written submissions of the Commission filed on 7 February 2025, especially paragraphs 5 to 51.
10. We have, therefore, concluded that Mr Abdallah's registration should be cancelled. His misconduct was very serious indeed, and, while he professes remorse, we are not at all satisfied that his remorse is based on any genuine insight into his misconduct nor what the profession expects of him.
11. We accept the Commission's submission (par 53) that the Tribunal must, by cancellation, denounce Mr Abdallah's serious misconduct, deter him and other practitioners from such misconduct in future, and uphold the high professional standards of the pharmacy profession.
12. We have also concluded that a non-review period of 12 months is appropriate in order to protect the health and safety of the public. Mr Abdallah has not taken sufficient advantage of his three year suspension, to prepare adequately for any return to practice, and we hope he takes better advantage of the non-review period to establish that "he can be trusted to practise as a robust and effective gatekeeper" (submissions, par 55b). We reject his late submission that six months would suffice (T, p 67, lines 38-41).
13. Throughout his sworn evidence and his oral submissions, what some might credit as candour should be seen as lack of comprehension of how wrong much of his conduct has been, and how important the details of the regulatory and guidance regimes are.
14. He failed to make the connection between what had occurred at Revesby and what he was doing or allowing to be done at Georges Hall (T, p 57, lines 20-4).
15. Although he purports to accept the wrongfulness of his conduct, he attacked aspects of this complaint/suspension process, and even floated the idea that we should supress his identity (T, p 55, line 40-p 56, line 15); he claims to have been "blindsided" by the seriousness of opioid abuse because of his own naivety, and despite 20 years in practice (T, p 57, lines 37-40); he looked at only some aspects of his own conduct (T, p 58, lines 17-18); he focussed on the absence of intention to defraud the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, instead of on the large amounts of drugs he was supplying without any prescription, and he did not explore alternative humanitarian avenues to assist in the Lebanese crisis (T, p 58, lines 21-8); he sought no guidance or assistance from, for example, the Pharmacy Guild, yet he believes the present complaints should be resolved with some sort of "plea deal" (T, p 63, line 24); as Ms Bayley noted (T, p 60, lines 37-8 and p 62, lines 40-2):

"... it's not important how much time has passed, it's important what the practitioner has done with it.

... in the absence of corroborative evidence about the practitioner's new way of doing things, the Tribunal has to look at his old way".

1. We give Mr Abdallah full credit for lack of financial motivation, and his frank admissions, but none for his attempt to shift all the blame to the GP whose patients so easily obtained dangerous drugs from Mr Abdallah, in large quantities and for so long (see, generally, T, pp 57-8).
2. Mr Abdallah has failed to pursue adequate CPD every year (T, p 58), apparently doing little, if any at all, since his suspension. He has undertaken no relevant professional development, mentoring, employment experience, or personal therapy (T, p 60, lines 40-7).
3. He purports to have been "shocked" that the PRU became involved with Georges Hall, but the expert report, prepared by someone of roughly his cohort in the profession, found clear lack of respect for the basic legislation covering his practice (see T, p 59), rendering him a failure in performing as a "vigilant and active proprietor" (see, generally, T, p 59).
4. Mr Abdallah has failed to seek professional assistance with his psychological inability to stand up to his family, his patients and the local GP until far too late. The departure of the GP and a stronger hand with drug-seeking patients will help (T, p 64, lines 9-10).
5. His actions with staff and available technology have been a case of "too little too late" (e.g., the drug register).
6. He is guilty of serious misconduct, over such an extended period, in the face of multiple red flags, and with no attempt to seek appropriate help, advice or guidance (see T, p 59, lines 37-44). He is unable to show, at least as yet, that he can and will be a strong and vigilant gatekeeper (T, p 60, lines 10-16). His personal self-confidence alone is not enough to give us confidence about his future. If he is truly depressed - and there is no professional evidence before us of this - personal bravado will not be enough (T, p 61, lines 16-23 and 36).
7. We conclude, therefore, that Mr Abdallah's registration should be cancelled with a non-review period of 12 months.

1. The usual course for the Tribunal to adopt on costs is to order the Respondent to pay the Applicant's costs: cl 13(1) of Schedule 5D of the National Law.
2. Mr Abdallah says that a costs order will impose a serious burden on his family which could have been lightened "had we been able to sit down as two parties would normally" (T, p 66, lines 36-7).
3. As Ms Bayley pointed out in response (T, p 68, lines 40-5):

"This isn't a civil matter where you've got a plaintiff and defendant... it's not a consent jurisdiction and the Tribunal has to be independently satisfied that any proposed orders are appropriate."

1. To displace the presumption that the successful party in Tribunal proceedings should receive its costs, there would have to be some disentitling conduct by the successful party. Impecuniosity is not a sufficient ground to not make the order, and here, despite his feeling that his position has been "trivialised" in some way (T, p 67, line 39), Mr Abdallah has pointed to no disentitling conduct on the Commission's behalf, and the Tribunal will make the usual order as to costs.

(1) The Respondent Elie Abdallah is found guilty of Complaints One and Two in the Further Amended Complaint filed on 6 February 2025;

(2) The Respondent's registration as a pharmacist under the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) is hereby cancelled;

(3) The Respondent Elie Abdallah is hereby prohibited for a period of 12 months from the date of these orders from applying to have order (2) overturned and his registration reinstated;

(4) The Respondent Elie Abdallah is ordered to pay the Applicant's costs of these proceedings as agreed, or as assessed according to law;

(5) The disclosure of the names of persons listed in the Schedule to the Further Amended Complaint, and that of the general practitioner ("Dr KL") identified in the evidence as the prescriber of much of the relevant medicine, is prohibited pursuant to section 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

19 August 2025 - Date of publication changed from 18 to 19 August 2025.