London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
If it proceeds to trial it means that the application was dismissed and the DHSC lost round one to simplify things. They basically wanted to prevent it going to full trial is my read. Now negotiations could start in earnest if indeed the application was dismissed. If Ncyt choose to go this route, remains to be seen.
It would appear from that article that the next step is full trail commencing in June.
The onus is on the claimant to prove that Exsig was not fit for purpose . We know it was used successfully elsewhere.
So I expect an RNS HC, timing unknown.
"Their barrister, Andrew Twigger KC, said in written submissions that evidence of the test failures was "seriously and obviously flawed" and that a trial should take place, and described the government's claim as "thoroughly bad".
Twigger wants a trial.
The only way Primerdesign / Novacyt can clear their name.
A settlement where NCYT receive, say, £50m is in essence clearing their name imv.
Where Primerdesign has claimed 81.5 mil pounds, - you may be underestimating JW there.
IMO JW's plans are for the full amount, Primerdesign fully vindicated and DHSC claim rejected by the High Court.
Most of the money to defend the claim is already spent, why be benevolent now after the last 2 years of hell.
Sharestack wrote: The first part of sentence deals with the summary judgement rejection. What does second part mean regarding 'robustness and 'unsustainable' any thoughts anyone.
It means that the DHSC performed a u-turn, having already taken delivery of the order, they changed their mind as to their requirements, perhaps they realised that they did not have the necessary resources to make the tests work, so they made up a story and suggested that the tests didn't work as expected.
Twigger wants a trial, however perhaps the DHSC don't!! Shall be interesting to see whether the DHSC go the distance, I'm not convinced.
Enjoy your Labour Day Larry, thanks for the article.
I'm with JW and Mr Twitter unless we accept less and get lightbench all over the NHS.))
At the time there was little appetite on the shop floor, within the DHSC, to make the tests work, the NHS was on its knees.
Twigger described the government's claim as "thoroughly bad"
That's a new description, we've already had very weak and strong grounds to assert contractual rights.
Don’t forget that these test were used in non-DHSC labs, such as Cambridge Laboratories, without complaint.
So the DHSC case is that six of seven labs had too high a failure rate, therefore one had an acceptable rate plus the labs elsewhere were able to use them. As a retired scientist with extensive experience with PCR technology that sounds to me like staff in six labs required further training and supervision of their laboratory technique and not that the kits failed.
Rearguard Action: a struggle to change or stop something even when it is not likely that you will succeed
They have been fighting a rearguard action for two years to stop their house from being demolished.