Frietvet schreef op 31 augustus 2022 14:32:
Huidige stijging door bericht dat de rechtszaak begonnen lijkt:
www.law360.com/articles/1524345?copied=1The 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.