Member Info for CaptainSwag

Karen

We are not talking about the ramifications on them bring successful. We both are agreed on that if you read. I have already explained why I think they made the application..trying it on ....as val says on the cheap..cheekily. But that is a lot different to

"Be under no illusion , the govt wanted the case stopped "

You suggesting that they are desperate not to go to court..just doesn't make sense

Remember they are the ones taking ncyt to court in the first place.

"Disagree Cap, they wanted to win "on the cheap" now, the Dhsc know they cant!"

you are not disagreeing with me - that is what i am saying

they tried it on - tried to bully.

does not mean they are desperate not to go to court

"Yes CS , they did."

What? I still am not clear on what you are trying to say? they want the whole thing over? or desperate to avoid a trial

i still disagree no one in the gov will lose sleep over it going to trial

"If the DHSC had won instead of the application being dismissed , thrown out , not upheld , the consequences could have been dire for NCYT. The trial may very well have not proceeded with the judge saying no chance of success."

agreed..but as i said this was a good tactic for the gov legal team and trying to bully - doesnt mean they are desperate not to go to trial. they tried it on - it didn't work. i am sure there will be more fn an games to come

"to learn that they don't have us over a barrel over some technicality related to the contract, which may have been difficult to defend."

well i think it is jumping the gun to say that it is not difficult to defend against

it is still going to court an quite a lengthy court hearing

"The DHSC now will also know how NCYT intend to defend their claims re the tests suitability ( that is how the judge made her decision) and it may well result in them being more inclined to settle ,"

i suspect they knew this all along already - they have clearly had numerous talks before it even went to court.

plus if you look at the filings - the particulars of the claim were made as well as the defence. plus the amendments

furthermore nyct barrister already knew they had a weak case on the judgement.

imho i dont think anything new was learnt by other party yesterday other than a feeling for the judge

The reason i hoped for a settlement is that ncyt would still have considerable cash after the whole covid thing. lets face it this small penny share company did win the lottery...and ability to transform themselves.

court case does carry risk - no matter how strongly i feel they have a good case

a settlement would have seen both sides win something in my opinion rather than one losing big at court - whether it be cash/solvency or reputation

"Be under no illusion , the govt wanted the case stopped "

I am not sure what you are trying to say here?

if it that they want the whole thing over - possibly/probably ...although i am not sure anyone at dhsc is losing sleep

if it is that they are desperate at avoiding trial - then i disagree

the gov want the PR of chasing the money back...in some ways even if they lose they win. i believe the PR is worth much more to them than the millions of cash

they prob tried bullying ncyt before applying for court date. this pre trial judgement seems to be another bully boy tactic..which neither ncyt nor the judge fell for.

however that is what good legal teams do. make no mistake they have very strong representation as do ncyt

Harchris - the point i am making is that "it is out" in terms of the lab findings etc

yesterday was only the pre trial review - so there was not such a big deal but it will gain more traction when we get to trial. tbh i was surprised it was covered at all - i wasnt expecting that. an as i say unfortunately i don't think it did us a favour in terms of negotiation of a settlement.

you all know i previously was of the opinion that it will be settled pre court date.

I now feel it will definitely go to trial

are the public interested ?- prob not at all

however enemies of the current gov most certainly are..and the gov know this

imho it is all about optics....after the news yesterday if they were to settle then it would leave huge question marks that could be exploited.

eg who was this lab that the gov relied on ? if their findings are dubious who employed them?

if the findings were accurate then why are the gov not pursuing all hard earned tax payer money back etc etc

"The DHSC application for summary judgement was perhaps the last throw of the dice,"

It isn't it is going to court

Neil - the fact sky news covered it is enough mate - they are quite big you know - and other news outlets like msn and yahoo will link to the sky report anyway

but as you don't believe me

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/british-government-pursues-145-million-refund-over-allegedly-defective-covid-19-test-kits/ar-AA1nWiaF

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/government-seeks-145m-refund-covid-153300954.html

apology accepted!..lol

Neil..i saw coverage in a few places

Sorry that was a typo..i meant our barristers called it right

Gaz..imho it was either a bluff ( game of chicken as I said before) or as you say a test to see the waters.

I would have thought there could have been a chance of a settlement on the dismissal...but unfortunately I don't think the coverage in press yesterday was helpful for that.

A settlement now looks like too much of a backdown for the gov.

Taking small UK companies to court is a pr exercise in the gov trying to look robust with tax payers money ..even though everyone knows they spaffed gazillions on sub standard foreign xxxx.

I mean how accurate were the lft that they used when there were much better UK alternatives? Sensitivity and specificity weren't so important then

The takeaways yesterday

1) the judge seems fair and common sense - which is my experience of commercial court

2) the gov barristers called it right

There is still a huge risk...not for widows and orphans..but I feel we still have a strong case. I can't see how a product that obtained CDTA approval...and we know how difficult that was ...can be as bad as the gov tried to say yesterday. Doesn't make sense

When the spread is large..i always take it that the mms want to curb buying.

If as soon as buy you are going to be huge amount down then that will put people off - eg if you need 10% to just break even again that is quite a bit

Gl.. I think we wi all also get an RNS in the morning saying " court it is"..to mark LR first day in charge..i also expect a comment on the barristers appraisal of the gov case being xxxx.

Personally I don't think there will be a settlement now...not with what has gone public today.

The gov will not want to lose face and can afford to risk it in court.

I think ncyt might have settled ..to keep a working relationship with the NHS...

Sorry phone jittered

Haha..harchris..great minds think alike

Haha..

Lactic...I have said all along the reason they pursue small UK companies is because they can

They would have no hope pursuing Chinese or Turkish companies that sold crap.

We all know it.

So they can use chasing after small UK companies that were doing their best to help out as a pr stunt..to say oh look how we are robustly chasing after wasted money.

The thing is the test passed ctda .

It looks like it is going to court

True dat!

Lol

V..i am sure she would love to hear from you again...and get sh view on things!..lol

Guess they will have to know soon..to prepare for trial of going to be included .

I suspect relatively shortly to know

Me too..real pain

Swapped work around so I could watch..