The next focusIR Investor Webinar takes places on 14th May with guest speakers from Blue Whale Growth Fund, Taseko Mines, Kavango Resources and CQS Natural Resources fund. Please register here.
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.
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.
Don’t forget that these test were used in non-DHSC labs, such as Cambridge Laboratories, without complaint.
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.
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.
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.))
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.
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.
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.
Thx Larry.
A settlement where NCYT receive, say, £50m is in essence clearing their name imv.
"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.
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.
Fyi, France is closed tomorrow.
Question for all Should one be worried about the case. I have all my saving/Pension in one Pot. I am expecting £3.50 from this.
I'm expecting an RNS stating the results of the summary judgement and the implications on DHSC and Primeredsign / Novacyt.
The company said they would keep us informed.
19/4 RNS "The Company will announce the outcome of the application in due course."
If they are not all done with the sj, we might not get the RNS.
Sp not so - effing bouncy adverts
Why?
Is so going wrong way… #stillconfident imo
B2 what are you hoping for then at 7am? An rns saying that the summary judgement has been thrown out?
If they were serious about a 1 day only hearing, and DHSC have given it their best shot at a summary judgement, then yes, the DHSC sj has failed, and Primerdesign must be given the chance to prove the DHSC testing regime was faulty as stated by Twigger.
So why have we not heard from the company about developments.
Awaiting 7am RNS, - we found out about the hearing in an RNS.
B2h so we r going to Court in June?
Amers,
From caseboard - DHSC v Primerdesign
30 Apr 2024 09:30 Pre trial review/application hearing
Mrs Justice Jefford.
Court 25.
It stated in caseboard that the hearing was for 1 day, so 'continue at the High Court' possibly means 10 June,
Primerdesign case must go to court.
That's all the hearing was for - to test whether a court case was necessary.
"Faced with that difficulty, the government is attempting to mount a rearguard action in the form of this 'robustness' claim, which on analysis is unsustainable."
The first part of sentence deals with the summary judgement rejection. What does second part mean regarding 'robustness and 'unsustainable' any thoughts anyone.
Hello all.
My first visit here in a long time.
Saw the news article on sky and thought I'd pop by and see what everyone's thoughts were.
Still hold my paltry bag of very expensive shares.
Have to say I'm flummoxed by the DHSC position and it doesn't tally with my recollections of that time.
Without going over old ground, tests were validated and approved and used. Never, ever intended for public use, whatever that means.
Pretty sure they got CDTA approval too and more were ordered.
I'm over my losses now, could have cashed out at 40% up, got greedy, doubled down, just before phase 2 was canned.
Live and learn.
Who's replaced salad man
As you were
P