Practitioner update · NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal
The NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal has found pharmacist Mr Nader Saweris guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct over the dispensing of Schedule 8 and Schedule 4D drugs at a West Gosford pharmacy he co-owned, and has reprimanded him, in Health Care Complaints Commission v Saweris [2025] NSWCATOD 30 and Health Care Complaints Commission v Saweris (No 2) [2025] NSWCATOD 113.
- Practitioner
- Mr Nader Saweris, pharmacist
- Prosecuted by
- Health Care Complaints Commission
- Stage 1 (findings)
- 1 April 2025, [2025] NSWCATOD 30
- Stage 2 (orders)
- 28 August 2025, [2025] NSWCATOD 113
- Outcome
- Reprimand and costs
What the complaint concerned
The Commission brought five complaints against Mr Saweris, one of three co-proprietors of Christopher Discount Chemist in West Gosford. They concerned the dispensing of Schedule 8 and Schedule 4D drugs at the pharmacy between 2017 and 2018, both by Mr Saweris himself and by a pharmacist the proprietors employed. The complaints against the other two co-proprietors were heard at the same time, with separate decisions.
Stage 1: findings
The Tribunal found Complaint One proven. It found that Mr Saweris:
- personally dispensed Schedule 8 and 4D drugs to nine patients, on some 53 occasions, in quantities that on many occasions did not accord with recognised therapeutic standards;
- failed to have regard to patients’ dispensing histories, which he admitted; and
- as a proprietor, failed to maintain an awareness of how dispensing was being conducted at the pharmacy, and to intervene when necessary.
The Tribunal found the dispensing mainly occurred after Mr Saweris had questioned the prescribing doctor, who gave an explanation. Mr Saweris believed he was then required to dispense. The Tribunal recorded that the prescribing doctor was practising improperly and unethically, and accepted that Mr Saweris was candid, agreed in evidence that much of the dispensing was inappropriate, and expressed remorse.
Complaints Two, Three and Four alleged improper or unethical conduct as a proprietor in relation to prescriptions that lacked required details. The Tribunal found none of them established. Its finding of unsatisfactory professional conduct was made under the limb concerning conduct significantly below the expected standard, and it found that Complaint One alone amounted to professional misconduct.
Stage 2: orders
The Commission sought a suspension of one to three months or, alternatively, a $20,000 fine. It accepted there was no need for specific deterrence: the conduct was more than six years old, Mr Saweris had practised without conditions since early 2020, and he had developed insight and changed his practice.
The Tribunal decided a reprimand alone was sufficient. It took into account the three-month suspension the Pharmacy Council of NSW had already imposed in 2019, his sale of the pharmacy, the extensive remedial education and mentoring he had undertaken, and the other consequences he had already experienced. It found a suspension or fine unnecessary and potentially punitive. It ordered that:
- Mr Saweris is reprimanded.
- He pay 70% of one third of the Commission’s costs of the combined proceedings, reflecting his successful defence of Complaints Two to Four.
Stage 1 decisionStage 2 decision
Source: Health Care Complaints Commission v Saweris [2025] NSWCATOD 30 and Health Care Complaints Commission v Saweris (No 2) [2025] NSWCATOD 113, NSW Caselaw, accessed 20 October 2026.
