Member Info for neilrich3

Perhaps the case shall be deferred for another 3 years (joke!)

With regards the following paragraph, what happened to the £40.8m disputed revenue from 2021, appreciate that it was never included within the 2021 results under accounting rules, but you'd think it might be recognised in the small print somewhere.

At the year end, the Group had trade receivables of £28,151,000 against which a credit loss provision of £865,000

has been applied. At the date of signing the financial statements, £23,957,000 of the 31 December 2023 receivables,

relating to products delivered during 2020, were overdue due to the contract dispute with the Department of

Health and Social Care “DHSC” (see note 18). Management considers it to be more likely than not that the 31

December 2023 balances are recoverable; this is a significant judgement.

Are you suggest that Co-Prep ES has been scrapped? The results state that it was launched Q1 2023.

Https://youtu.be/aqnISi4kSEQ?si=nWtcdD6P7XnBW9JS

The trial hearing has been listed to commence on 10 June 2024, and finish on 4 July 2024. The Company expects the court to reserve judgment, meaning that the outcome of the trial will not be known on 4 July 2024.

Https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-69023690

The UK Covid-19 Inquiry in Northern Ireland has heard devastating evidence with multiple failings across several departments, including the Department of Health (DoH).

We learned that "political dysfunction" hampered the roll-out and compliance of some Covid-19 policies.

The inquiry has left a trail of unanswered questions and talking points for the health service.

In closing remarks, counsel for the bereaved said the years of austerity and underfunding with single year budgets left departments including health "ravaged and worn".

That impacted on staffing across the system which, when required to act quickly, simply wasn't there.

The test and tracing system was "understaffed" and, according to the chief medical officer, the Public Health Agency (PHA) did not react with speed to the severity of what was unfolding.

V1:

During preparation of samples, compliance with good laboratory techniques is essential

to minimise the risk of cross-contamination between samples and the inadvertent

introduction of nucleases into samples during and after the sample preparation

procedure. Good aseptic technique should always be used when working with nucleic

acids.

Work surfaces, pipettes and centrifuges should be cleaned and decontaminated regularly

with cleaning products (e.g.10% bleach, ethanol, DNA/RNA remover) to minimise risk of

nucleic acid contamination.

v8:

Good laboratory practice is required to ensure the performance of the kit, with care required to

prevent contamination of the kit components. Components should be monitored for

contamination and any components thought to have become contaminated should be discarded

as standard laboratory waste in a sealed pouch or zip-lock plastic bag.

The defendants say not only that that is a factual inference that cannot properly be drawn but that Figure 2 does not support it. For example, it can be seen that one site at Portsmouth had no invalid test results, which itself suggests that there was nothing wrong with the kits and that invalid test results were or might have been the product of human error.

The fact that Twigger described the government's claim as "thoroughly bad" speaks volumes, probably as has been surmised upon this forum, I expect that in the main the Government has been dishonest in its claim.

These tests had a shelf life, at what point, conveniently, did the government decide that these tests were not fit for purpose. Not that it was possible for the tests to be returned, not as if NCYT could have sold the tests on to another organisation, did the DHSC follow the agreed process for resolving an issue and within the agreed timeline.

It would appear that it was many months into the contract, before the DHSC raised a flag.

Not suggesting that they were faulty.....just emphasising what's written into the contract, clearly the DHSC is suggesting that the tests were faulty.

Supplier’s maximum liability with any Authority claim under this warranty shall be to replace the faulty Goods free of charge or refund to the Authority the full costs for such faulty Goods paid by the Authority to the Supplier if replacement is not possible.

Gizmo, not sure about you're analogy, signing a legally binding contract, a government organisation agreeing to purchase £150 million worth of tests......not same as an individual on the high street purchasing a canoe.

High-risk patients with #COVID symptoms should use PCR rather than rapid tests, study suggests

The sensitivity of rapid tests was 47%, compared with RT-PCR and 80% versus viral culture.

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/high-risk-patients-covid-symptoms-should-use-pcr-rather-rapid-tests-study-suggests

The DHSC application for summary judgement was perhaps the last throw of the dice, they likely know that their case is weak and that their evidence suggesting that tests didn't work, shall not stand up in court under scrutiny, hence the reason for the application, yesterday non of the evidence was examined in detail.

Captain....post the news links. Google search revealed only the one previously mentioned Sky News online item, which is already yesterday's news and below the radar for anybody interested in this case.

Captain, Press coverage? One item upon Sky news online, hardly the 10 o'clock news, already lost into the ether!

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.

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.