Member Info for neilrich3

The DHSC may already have conceded, that certain aspects of its claim have no prospect of success, therefore possible that the case hinges upon this one aspect. Should the DHSC be unsuccessful with this Summary Judgement, I'd imagine that their case shall fall apart and won't be fit for trial.

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

Summary judgment is a court order - judgment - which brings litigation to an end early.

The legal proceedings are brought to an end when, at a hearing of a summary judgment application a court finds that the claim or the defence:

has no real prospect of success, and

there is no other compelling reason why the case should be allowed to proceed to trial.

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

The judgment avoids a close examination of all the evidence which might be produced at the usual end point of litigation, which is the trial.

The parties are saved significant time, expense, worry and the distraction of enduring the entire litigation process through to the trial. There is no point.

‘Very week’ the wording upon the UK RNS and not weak

I’d imagine that the entire case hinges upon one aspect.

Also, not precarious, but ‘very precarious’

An interesting choice of words

Reading between the lines the DHSC perhaps ready to throw in the towel :)

Wow…subjective, however perhaps this trial won’t go the distance and the DHSC shall attempt to settle the claim…..here’s hoping!!

In law, a summary judgment, also referred to as judgment as a matter of law or summary disposition,[1] is a judgment entered by a court for one party and against another party summarily, i.e., without a full trial. Summary judgments may be issued on the merits of an entire case, or on discrete issues in that case. The formulation of the summary judgment standard is stated in somewhat different ways by courts in different jurisdictions.

In England and Wales, the court rules for a party without a full trial when "the claim, defence or issue has no real prospect of success and there is no other compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at a trial."

.....towards the close

Looking forward to the next webcast (investor presentation), I think that together, Lyn Rees, Joanne Mason and Steve Gibson, shall deliver a compelling case for investment, lets hope that their actions shall speak louder than their words.

At the 2023 AGM, Steve Gibson came across very well, it was James Wakefield and James McCarthy that let the side down. I'm confident, from what I have seen, that both Lyn and Joanne shall come across very well.

Here's hoping that we have a formidable team!!

I understand, that with regards the acquisition, Steve Gibson was instrumental, something highlighted by the board when he was appointed CFO. I'd imagine that Steve and Lyn already have an effective working relationship, lets hope that they can build upon this going forward.

I'd say that Director share purchase is not impossible, for all we know, likely no change behind the scenes with the DHSC dispute.

Clearly Yourgene is now the driving force, both Lyn and Jo have been rewarded.

Lets hope the new directors buy some shares

The new tax year theory does not account for the action in France.

Https://twitter.com/rawsalerts/status/1775936629586169879

Why the 6th April?

In his defence, I believe that WBAFC is indeed a doctor, have seen him upon LinkedIn

Not just the WHO, the DHSC was happy to take PROMate, despite the dispute, essentially the same test, although packaged differently to avoid pipetting!