Aandeel Novacyt PSE:ALNOV.FR, FR0010397232

quote:

cruiser2010 schreef op 27 augustus 2022 09:38:

Pffffffff

quote:

Frietvet schreef op 31 augustus 2022 14:32:

Huidige stijging door bericht dat de rechtszaak begonnen lijkt:

www.law360.com/articles/1524345?copied=1

The products were also designed to be used with either dry or phosphate-buffered saline swabs, but were not suitable for the latter, the government argued in its suit.

But the company has denied any wrongdoing, firing off an amended defense dated July 1 and filed at the High Court on Aug. 24. Primer Design and Novacyt have hit back with a counterclaim, arguing that the government owed them £81.5 million in outstanding payments and interest.

The companies said in their filing that the lawsuit is based on an incorrect assumption that the kits had to achieve a "sufficiently high level of 'real-world' performance."

"The particulars of claim do not anywhere identify any promise, assurance or warranty of such performance which might be said to have been breached," they said. The contract says "nothing of the kind" about the tests being required to reach a 100% level of accuracy, which is "practically impossible," the defense says.

"The claimant previously accepted in correspondence that there was no warranty of 100% accuracy, and that clinical sensitivity could not be 'read across' from results on contrived samples, but now seeks to reverse its position in both respects to bring this claim," the companies told the court.

The companies also said that the government brought its claim on the basis of a series of "internal, inconsistent and incomplete draft reports, which were based on demonstrably inaccurate data collected across various NHS sites, apparently without reference to any validation protocol."

has denied that the reports were flawed, adding in its reply, dated Aug. 24 and filed the same day, that they followed internal protocols.

"The [kits] were repeatedly and consistently shown to be inadequate, including being consistently shown to produce false negatives," the government says in its reply.

Both sides declined to comment.

This is not the first time the government's pandemic contracts for testing services and equipment have landed in court. A nonprofit organization, Good Law Project, has brought several actions against the government over its handling of contracts during the coronavirus crisis.

The High Court ruled in January that the government's fast-track route for companies supplying personal protective equipment during the pandemic was unlawful because it hindered competition for contracts worth millions of pounds.

And, in the same month, the Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that the government's decision to award a £560,000 deal to a polling company for message-testing during the first wave of COVID-19 was unlawfully plagued by bias.

The health secretary is represented by Adam Heppinstall QC, Lucy McCormick, George Mallet and Hazel Jackson of Henderson Chambers, instructed by the Government Legal Department.

The defendants are represented by Andrew Twigger QC and Jonathan All**** of Maitland Chambers, instructed by Stephenson Harwood.

The case is Secretary of State for Health and Social Care v. Primer Design Ltd. and another, case number HT-2022-000141, in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.

--Editing by Ed Harris.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
-----
Uitgebreide discussie op Engels forum dat argumenten dshc niet al te stevig zijn.

quote:

Frietvet schreef op 31 augustus 2022 14:32:

Huidige stijging door bericht dat de rechtszaak begonnen lijkt:

www.law360.com/articles/1524345?copied=1

The products were also designed to be used with either dry or phosphate-buffered saline swabs, but were not suitable for the latter, the government argued in its suit.

But the company has denied any wrongdoing, firing off an amended defense dated July 1 and filed at the High Court on Aug. 24. Primer Design and Novacyt have hit back with a counterclaim, arguing that the government owed them £81.5 million in outstanding payments and interest.

The companies said in their filing that the lawsuit is based on an incorrect assumption that the kits had to achieve a "sufficiently high level of 'real-world' performance."

"The particulars of claim do not anywhere identify any promise, assurance or warranty of such performance which might be said to have been breached," they said. The contract says "nothing of the kind" about the tests being required to reach a 100% level of accuracy, which is "practically impossible," the defense says.

"The claimant previously accepted in correspondence that there was no warranty of 100% accuracy, and that clinical sensitivity could not be 'read across' from results on contrived samples, but now seeks to reverse its position in both respects to bring this claim," the companies told the court.

The companies also said that the government brought its claim on the basis of a series of "internal, inconsistent and incomplete draft reports, which were based on demonstrably inaccurate data collected across various NHS sites, apparently without reference to any validation protocol."

has denied that the reports were flawed, adding in its reply, dated Aug. 24 and filed the same day, that they followed internal protocols.

"The [kits] were repeatedly and consistently shown to be inadequate, including being consistently shown to produce false negatives," the government says in its reply.

Both sides declined to comment.

This is not the first time the government's pandemic contracts for testing services and equipment have landed in court. A nonprofit organization, Good Law Project, has brought several actions against the government over its handling of contracts during the coronavirus crisis.

The High Court ruled in January that the government's fast-track route for companies supplying personal protective equipment during the pandemic was unlawful because it hindered competition for contracts worth millions of pounds.

And, in the same month, the Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that the government's decision to award a £560,000 deal to a polling company for message-testing during the first wave of COVID-19 was unlawfully plagued by bias.

The health secretary is represented by Adam Heppinstall QC, Lucy McCormick, George Mallet and Hazel Jackson of Henderson Chambers, instructed by the Government Legal Department.

The defendants are represented by Andrew Twigger QC and Jonathan All**** of Maitland Chambers, instructed by Stephenson Harwood.

The case is Secretary of State for Health and Social Care v. Primer Design Ltd. and another, case number HT-2022-000141, in the High Court of Justice of England and Wales.

--Editing by Ed Harris.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.

-----
Uitgebreide discussie op Engels forum dat argumenten dshc niet al te stevig zijn.

quote:

Frietvet schreef op 31 augustus 2022 15:44:

Met de dshc claim en vervolgens counterclaim van al weer enige tijd geleden verviel mediation. Neemt niet weg dat een rechter daar alsnog opnieuw op kan sturen.

quote:

Turfbaas schreef op 31 augustus 2022 16:23:

Dan halen we de 7.000 pagina's nog wel! Zo lang zal het overigens niet duren want inmiddels is alles wel al uitgezocht en uitgeschreven door partijen zodat het snel compleet bij de rechter kan liggen. Hebben ze in het verleden zelf overigens besloten tot mediation of heeft de rechter daarop aangestuurd? In het laatste geval kan het allemaal nog veel sneller lijkt me.

quote:

trab33 schreef op 1 september 2022 15:13:

@ Ronster ,dat is het gevaar dat achter de hoek schuilt , waarom zouden er andere instanties nu een klacht neerleggen ? Denk dat deze gewoon de uitkomst afwachten van dispuut en als ze hier bloed ruiken er zeker nog verschillende claims gaan volgen . Alles hangt af van uitkomst dispuut !!

quote:

Ronster schreef op 1 september 2022 15:53:

[...]

Waarom zou je dezelfde producten bij hetzelfde bedrijf nog bestellen als je een klacht hebt?

quote:

Ronster schreef op 1 september 2022 15:53:

[...]

Waarom zou je dezelfde producten bij hetzelfde bedrijf nog bestellen als je een klacht hebt?