Member Info for neilrich3

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 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.

Reading between the lines, the DHSC application for summary judgement has been rejected.

Can't imagine that there shall be an after hours RNS, an opportunity for Lyn Rees to put his name upon the announcement from Tomorrow.

May well be someone sat within the courtroom, assuming mobile devices are allowed, news might be leaking out.

This time last week, I was kicking about Central London with nothing to do, wasting time before a flight Tues evening, if only that had been today….I’d have been there for sure.

I'd like to know what the revenue was for Q1 and an estimate for the full year. Also, an R&D update.

Bird flu virus found in one-fifth of US milk samples, testing shows.

Early results from sampling study suggest bird flu could be widespread in America’s commercial supplies.

The PCR tests used to analyse the samples can detect both live and dead virus fragments, but cannot distinguish between the two.

“Additional testing is required to determine whether intact pathogen is still present and if it remains infectious, which would help inform a determination of whether there is any risk of illness associated with consuming the product,” the FDA said.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/bird-flu-outbreak-cows-dairy-farms-us-milk-supplies/

Should NCYT be successful with their defence and the counter claim, the cash in the back shall be in the region of £2.00 a share, however we shall have to wait and see, fingers crossed.

Should there be an out of court settlement, how likely that the DHSC shall settle in full? Any negotiated settlement would likely involve a compromise, I'd have thought. Also, pointless rushing into further acquisition, I'd rather hear something positive from the current stable, for instance growth in revenue for Q1 and an earnings estimate.

Https://programs.pacb.com/l/1652/2024-01-21/44cw88?utm_source=Website&utm_medium=webpage&utm_term=button&utm_content=RegisterCTA&utm_campaign=2024-PRISM

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-L-orT5Nmo

You're good....considering that the company doesn't know exactly when the outcome shall be announced.

Gizmo, Should the DHSC believe that Primerdesign have no viable defence, why the application? Surely they'd allow the trial to go ahead, in order to secure their requested refund in full. Not for the DHSC to say there's's no real prospect of success for Primerdesgin, therefore we (the DHSC) shall submit an application for Summary Judgment.

Having considered Friday's announcement, makes little sense at the eleventh hour, have the DHSC backed themselves into a corner? If only we understood which aspect the application concerns, are they attempting to force our hand and accept a reduced settlement. The application shall not consider any evidence in detail.

Part 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules sets the test for summary judgment. It is there for appropriate cases to be disposed of summarily: when there's no real prospect of success.

My best guess, is that this is the formal process that the DHSC has to follow before throwing in the towel, their last throw of the dice.

I feel that Friday was the beginning of the end and I shall be surprised if this dispute now goes the distance, hoping that this shall be settled very quickly following the pre-trial review.

The wording of the RNS is just as likely drafted by Steve Gibson, in my opinion.

Https://hallellis.co.uk/summary-judgment-applications-defences/

I feel that this is a tick box exercise for the DHSC, they've realised that their claim is not fit for trial and therefore it would be wrong to proceed, however they're required to be meticulous and follow due process before being able to settle the counter claim, after all they're using the public purse. Summary Judgement is clearly a formal process for cessation of legal proceedings, there's nothing to suggest that the DHSC believe that the summary judgment shall rule in their favour.

For the DHSC the writing is already on the wall and they know it.

Courts say that summary judgment is:

designed to deal with cases that are not fit for trial at all: Lord Woolf in Swain v Hillman (1999), the Court of Appeal

Have I missed something? Kaeren's Twitter link below...... is there a quote from Lyn Rees?