Claimant v S McDonald, an Inspector appointed by City of Edinburgh Council — 2025

The tribunal heard an appeal by Serene Essence Ltd against a Prohibition Notice served on 14 March 2025 in relation to the appellant's offering of IV Drip Infusions. The appellant was represented by Miss Ahmed, owner and director of the business, and the respondent was the City of Edinburgh Council inspector, Ms Sarah McDonald. The tribunal identified the issue as whether the appellant was carrying on activities to which the relevant statutory provisions applied, whether those activities involved a risk of serious personal injury, whether the notice appropriately prohibited those activities, and whether the inspector's opinion and the facts relied on were reliable.

The tribunal accepted that IV Drip Infusions carried risks including infection, thrombosis, infiltration, phlebitis, air embolism, fluid overload, allergic reaction, overdose, and masking more serious health conditions. It found that Miss Ahmed was not a Healthcare Professional and had no formal healthcare qualifications, and it preferred the inspector's evidence on infection control concerns, including ventilation, the wall coverings, storage of items used in treatment, the lack of visible suitable skin disinfectant, and Miss Ahmed's inability to answer questions about aseptic technique, isotonic, hypotonic and hypertonic solutions, vital signs, fluid imbalance, and occluded sites.

On the evidence of the inspector's qualifications and experience, the tribunal found that she had the necessary expertise to form the opinion underpinning the notice. It also accepted that she took account of the fact that the premises were not operational at the time of the inspection, including Miss Ahmed's explanation that a fabric chair would not be present during treatment and that a fridge would be brought in for cold storage, but concluded that this did not displace the risk identified. Applying the approach discussed in Chevron, the tribunal held that the question was whether the activities in fact involved a risk of serious personal injury, on the balance of probabilities and on all the evidence.

The tribunal concluded that the notice appropriately prohibited IV Drip Therapy while allowing Miss Ahmed to continue other treatments such as botox and fillers. It held that the respondents had proved on the balance of probabilities that the appellant's practice of offering IV Vitamin Infusion Drips to clients caused a risk of serious personal injury to the general public, and it therefore affirmed the Prohibition Notice. No monetary remedy was awarded.